Speaker's Statement

NOTHING

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Clerk to read the private business, I wish to make a brief statement about security. My statement follows a meeting of the House of Commons Commission yesterday, and advice from the joint committee on security, which met on Monday. In relation to the Chamber, I have suspended the right of Members to sponsor guests to the Special Galleries. This restriction will remain in force until further notice. Only people personally invited by me will be able to access the Special Galleries. Peers will have access to their usual section in the Gallery. I have instructed the secretary of the Press Gallery that only those who hold press passes are, for the time being, allowed into the Press Gallery. Prior to last week's incident, the police and security services had embarked on a thorough review of security in the parliamentary estate. They will produce an interim report with recommendations covering matters of immediate concern as soon as possible. Those recommendations will be considered as soon as they are received and any measures which need to be taken will, in the first instance, be announced to the House. I realise that the restrictions on access to the Galleries will cause inconvenience for some Members and for others, but I am sure that the House will appreciate that it is in the interests of all who work in this building that the lessons of last week's incident are learned and acted upon.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

Ipswich Market Bill

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Political Donations

Harry Barnes: What his proposals are for the registration of donations made to political parties operating in Northern Ireland.

John Spellar: I announced on 6 May that the Government were minded to let the current order exempting the Northern Ireland political parties from the requirement to comply with Part IV of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 expire in February next year. Part IV regulates donations to parties so that foreign and anonymous donations are prohibited. The Government are aware of the reasonable demand in many quarters for greater transparency and accountability. I have invited views from all interested parties on what new arrangements might be made.

Harry Barnes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us are not opposed to the four Sinn Fein non-Members having facilities in the House, but expect them to be around occasionally so that they can be nobbled and so that alternative positions can be put to them?
	My right hon. Friend's financial approach is important. What arrangements are being made with the Republic of Ireland to ensure that massive donations to Sinn Fein from Canada, America, New Zealand and Australia are prevented in both jurisdictions?

John Spellar: My hon. Friend will know that since the original disapplication the situation in the Republic has changed, and greater restrictions have already been imposed. He will also know that in the United States contributions from foreign nationals have been prohibited for more than 30 years. That includes Governments, companies and individuals.
	It is for those who wish to have a unique position in Northern Ireland to make the case. We recognise that there are some special circumstances, but given the law in the United Kingdom and in the Republic—and, as I have said, in other countries, notably the United States—those who want the current exemptions to continue must try to make that case.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: We welcome the Government's move to bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom in this regard, but is there not a greater problem—the substantial funding that one political party, Sinn Fein-IRA, receives from the criminal activities of its paramilitary wing? I recently met the Irish Justice Minister, Michael McDowell. He said that the IRA, through its criminal activities, was raising between £10 million and £20 million a year, much of which was channelled into Sinn Fein's political activities. Is that not where action is needed, to end that criminal activity and the funding of Sinn Fein through its criminality?

John Spellar: Of course, the first aspect is to prevent the criminal activity in the first place, rather than the application of the funds. As I said in my previous answer, there are strong arguments for greater transparency in funding. Candidates and parties have to file election returns, which can be open to challenge and investigation. There are several avenues; this is just one of them. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, this is part of an approach to dealing with criminality by paramilitary groups not just in Northern Ireland, but in the Republic of Ireland, too.

Eddie McGrady: In view of that last reply and the fact that the Government believe, as confirmed by the Independent Monitoring Commission, that certain political parties and paramilitaries are one and the same thing—IRA-Sinn Fein, the Loyalist Volunteer Force-Progressive Unionist party—will the Minister explain how he is going to monitor the funding arising from paramilitary activities to the particular political wing of the organisation? How can that be done? Will he set in train any further legislative requirements to pursue that—either through statute or by criminal investigation?

John Spellar: I certainly look forward to seeing the responses from all political parties to my proposals on political funding and the expiry of the current regulations in February next year. I am also minded that there are special circumstances—the hon. Gentleman will be aware of them—involving the intimidation of donors in Northern Ireland, and I recognise the particular relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and the special relationship that citizens of the Republic of Ireland have on the electoral register of the UK more widely. I am aware of the difficulties, but, equally, I am strongly persuaded of the desirability of having the greatest possible amount of transparency in order that the undesirable activities that the hon. Gentleman identified can be exposed and, hopefully, prevented.

David Burnside: I welcome the Minister's response. Anything that brings greater uniformity across the UK on the registration of political funding is, I believe, to be welcomed. However, the important point is about the sourcing of the political funding of political parties. The Minister will realise that many courageous journalists in newspapers such as the Sunday World and the Irish Independent have made serious allegations about the sources of funding of Sinn Fein. Can the Minister be more specific and give the House a commitment that he will speak to the Chief Constable and the chairman of the Electoral Commission to ensure that the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Electoral Commission investigate the criminal funding of what should be normal democratic activity in Northern Ireland, which Sinn Fein does not carry out?

John Spellar: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. My point earlier—in response to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson)—was that the initial criminality and its gains are the first matter of concern for the PSNI and, indeed, for the authorities in the Irish Republic. Co-operation between those forces against the criminal activities of all the paramilitary groups, which are extorting considerable sums of money from the people of Northern Ireland, is crucial. At the same time, we are looking into taking further measures under electoral funding regulations in order to prevent that money from being diverted into political activity.

Kevin McNamara: My hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) mentioned the Independent Monitoring Commission and the fines that some political parties had to pay. However, is my right hon. Friend aware that some of the voluntary organisations in Northern Ireland are concerned that the precedent established by the IMC might be extended to them, particularly in areas where they are seeking to bring people in, rather than being associated with paramilitary activities? They are worried about losing their funding and jeopardising the good work that they are doing. There is a real fear of a return to the Hurd sanction of political vetting.

John Spellar: I fully understand the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend, and I should be more than happy to examine any specific instances of which he may be aware. We want to enable people who have been involved in paramilitary activity, but who have seen the error of their ways, to play a constructive part in the development of peace and reconciliation. However, we intend to come down very heavily on people who continue to undertake paramilitary activity, to live off their fellow citizens in Northern Ireland and to destabilise the situation.

Electoral Register

Hugo Swire: If he will make a statement on the state of the electoral register in Northern Ireland.

John Spellar: The current electoral register for Northern Ireland published on 4 May contains the names of 1,076,940 individuals.

Hugo Swire: All hon. Members will have welcomed the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, to which Her Majesty's Opposition provided much good input, both here and in the other place. By December 2002, 10 per cent. fewer people were entitled to vote in Northern Ireland. We have just heard how the funding of political parties in Northern Ireland is to be brought into line with the rest of the UK, but is there not something to be said for bringing the rest of the UK into line with Northern Ireland in respect of the amount of evidence needed for registration of voters? In that way, we could achieve unanimity, here and in Northern Ireland, on the ability and entitlement to vote.

John Spellar: With the greatest respect, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I think that that question ought to be addressed to my colleagues in the Department for Constitutional Affairs.

Tony Clarke: Surely my right hon. Friend will be as concerned as I am that there are 20,000 fewer people on the electoral register this year than there were last year, and that there are major discrepancies between the Northern Ireland census and the electoral register. Is not it time for us to review the legislation, given that we want more people to vote, not fewer? Should we not try to encourage voters to return?

John Spellar: There are a number of reasons for the change identified by my hon. Friend, and one is the end of carrying forward, which obviously has had an impact. In addition, members of the police and prison services are reluctant to register, as parties with links to paramilitaries have access to the full register. However, I fully acknowledge that that is not the whole story. For example, studies of the demographics show that under-registration is more common in working-class areas. Along with electoral registration officers and officials in my Department, I am considering what measures can be taken to ensure that the register—which is probably the most accurate that we have ever had in Northern Ireland—is as comprehensive as possible. We want every citizen in Northern Ireland to be able to vote and to exercise the franchise, on 10 June and in other elections.

Lembit �pik: The Electoral Commission published a very authoritative report on the Northern Ireland elections last year, and it included some recommendations. What plans do the Government have to implement those recommendations and the observations made in the report about the electoral register?

John Spellar: I am examining all the representations made to me about the electoral register and voting practice, but the need for an identification card at polling stations is becoming more widely understood by people and political parties, as is the need to register. We need to keep the electoral register honest and up-to-date but, as I said in reply to the previous questioner, I am concerned that we try to use a number of mechanisms to make it more comprehensive.

Nigel Dodds: In ensuring[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There should not be all this conversation going on. It is unfair to the hon. Gentleman, who is asking a question.

Nigel Dodds: In ensuring that those people who are properly entitled to vote in Northern Ireland are able to do so, will the Minister tell the House in more detail what he is doing to promote the take-up of the electoral identity card, especially in working-class areas, where people may lack other photo ID that would enable them to vote on election day?

John Spellar: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland has provided various facilities. I fully accept that the system could be improved, and we are more than willing to receive recommendations and suggestions in respect of weaknesses and possible improvements. As I said earlier, we want to ensure that all citizens who are eligible to vote are registered in their proper locations.
	We want to facilitate voting by those on the register, including people with disabilities. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are undertaking work in that area. We also want to ensure that the person who turns up at the polling station to vote is the individual who is registered. I am sure that hon. Members understand the need for that degree of accuracy. Considerable improvements have been made, but that does not mean that we cannot make further changes that will lead to further improvements.

Soccer

David Taylor: What discussions he has held with the Irish Football Association regarding the implementation of a soccer strategy.

Angela Smith: There have been ongoing discussions with the Irish Football Associationthe IFAat official level, leading up to the association's decision on 6 April 2004 to proceed with the implementation of the changes required under the soccer strategy. I met with the president of the IFA immediately following that decision, on 7 April, and discussions have continued since with officials, the Sports Council for Northern Ireland and the association. Terms of reference and membership of the soccer strategy implementation group have been agreed and the group, which includes representatives of the IFA, held its first meeting on 24 May.

David Taylor: Football has the power to forge links between divided communities and to combat the poison of the sectarian bigotry that led to the premature end of the international career of Neil Lennon, the former Leicester and now Celtic midfielder. Only last week, death threats were painted in the area around his home in Glasgow. Can my hon. Friend the Minister tell the House how much of the welcome 8 million that the IFA has dedicated to football in Northern Ireland will be used to develop the skills of all young players there and, in particular, encourage them always to play the game and never to play the man?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Angela Smith: My hon. Friend can tell from the response from the House that we all entirely agree with his comments. I wish to put it on the record that I totally and utterly condemn the attacks on Neil Lennon, both in Northern Ireland and in Glasgow. In fact, Northern Ireland has been deprived of a talented international player. Sport has the power and the capacity to bring people together. The IFA has an officer dealing with sectarian issues, Michael Boyd, and it will bring forward proposals on youth development work that will address the situation.

Martin Smyth: The Minister will be aware that Windsor Park is in my constituency. Will she give an undertaking that the necessary finance will be forthcoming to upgrade the ground for the European matches, which will include games against Austria, Azerbaijan and Polandnot forgetting England and Walesto meet the regulation standards? Will she also join me in congratulating the IFA and other sporting bodies in Northern Ireland that have campaigned to root out sectarianism in sport?

Angela Smith: I have had no official approach from Windsor Park to contribute to upgrading the facilities, but I hope that international games will continue to be played there. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the proposals for the infrastructure of sport in Northern Ireland and, if a site can be agreed, a multi-sport stadium. I congratulate any sport that takes action to root out sectarianism.

School Exchanges

Chris Ruane: If he will give financial assistance to the development of exchange programmes between schools in Northern Ireland and (a) the UK mainland and (b) the Irish Republic.

Barry Gardiner: This year, my Department has provided financial assistance of 275,000 for a number of exchange programmes with schools in both Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland. I pay tribute to the dedication and commitment of the teachers who have organised those exchanges. Both teachers and pupils have found the programmes to be of enormous benefit to the learning experience and my Department is currently exploring ways of extending exchange opportunities with both Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland.

Chris Ruane: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Last year in my constituency, Mr. Alun Jones, the head of Ysgol Dewi Santa Welsh-medium schooltried to organise an exchange with a Gaelic-speaking school in the north. He asked me if I could access funding, but try as I might, I could find no funding for that visit. Does my hon. Friend agree that school exchange visits are a valuable way of breaking down barriers and prejudice, and that funds should be made available for school exchange visits between the north and the UK mainland?

Barry Gardiner: I entirely endorse those remarks. Language is importanttbnactach - an teanga. It is good that those schools have had the opportunity to make that exchange.
	When it was inaugurated, the east-west programme involved just Britain and the Republic of Ireland, but it has been extended to allow exchanges between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Republic and Northern Ireland. Although it is in its infancy, increasing money is being put into that, which I hope my hon. Friend will be able to access.

Desmond Swayne: Will not the exchanges with the mainland reveal to pupils' parents a shocking disparity of treatment? If the status of a selective school is to change on the mainland, there will be a ballot. In the Province, it is being done by ministerial fiat, in the face of the express wishes of the people.

Barry Gardiner: This was supposed to be a question about education exchanges. The hon. Gentleman has given us an education in an exchange of questions. However, on the issue of the Costello report, it is the express wish of two thirds of the population in Northern Ireland, as estimated in the household survey, that the 11-plus should be abolished, and that is what we propose to do.

Devolved Government

Andrew MacKay: If he will make a statement on the restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland.

Paul Murphy: We hope to restore devolved government in Northern Ireland as soon as possible. That requires a complete end to paramilitary activity and a commitment on all sides to the future stability of the institutions, and we are working towards that goal. Formal activity in the review of the operation of the agreement is now on hold for the European election period, but it will resume after 10 June, and we hope then to engage in a period of more intensive political dialogue.

Andrew MacKay: Michael McDowell, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, wrote in the Sunday Independent last week that
	the relationship between Sinn Fein and the IRA . . . is a relationship of complete subservience, ideologically and factually.
	There cannot be any question of the restoration of the Good Friday Agreement institutions on the basis that one party exercising executive power will take political direction from a group of people who are actively directing paramilitarism.
	Does the Secretary of State agree?

Paul Murphy: We have always said that the IRA and Sinn Fein are inextricably linked and are part of the same republican movement. That is most certainly the case. We also believe that we will not resolve these difficulties until the question of paramilitary activity, in this case by the IRA, is dealt with, too. Until that is dealt with, I cannot see the restoration of the institutions.

Seamus Mallon: Is not it a bitter irony that those who conceived, wrote, negotiated and set up the Good Friday agreement are no longer central to the negotiations and therefore cannot ensure that the institutions are set up? In those circumstances, the two Governments have to be the custodians of the Good Friday agreement. Can the Secretary of State tell me what plans the two Governments have to ensure that Sinn Fein does not milk the Good Friday agreement for its own party political and paramilitary reasons, and that the Democratic Unionist party does not strangle the Good Friday agreement after sucking every ounce of power and influence from it?

Paul Murphy: I hope that all parties in Northern Ireland will address the issue of restoring the institutions after the European elections, and I believe that all parties are serious in wanting to see the restoration of devolution, but I understand the points that the hon. Gentleman makes.

David Trimble: It is now six months since the election to the non-existent Northern Ireland Assembly. Does the Secretary of State agree that it has been six months of failurefailure by republicans to end paramilitarism, and failure by the DUP to develop a coherent policy or to achieve progress? Is not it now time for the Government to bring matters to a head, get the parties to put up, or else shut down on the pretence that devolution is now possible?

Paul Murphy: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it has been a disappointing six monthsof course it has. We have not restored the institutions and we want that to happen but, as I said in my previous answer, I believe that every party in Northern Ireland wants to see that restoration. I repeat, too, that after the European elections we will resume intensive negotiations with the aim of setting up those institutions.

David Lidington: I think that the Secretary of State and I agree that the current arrangements for considering Northern Ireland legislation through Orders in Council are profoundly unsatisfactory. Does he accept that the logic of the Government's position and the logic of the Dublin Government's position is that we should now proceed on the basis that constitutional politicians from both Unionist and nationalist traditions should be able to form an Administration in Belfast and that they should not all be punished by the continuing refusal of Sinn Fein-IRA to withdraw from paramilitarism?

Paul Murphy: But we have two aimsone is obviously to ensure that we restore the institutions and get devolved government back in Northern Ireland, and the second is to see an end to paramilitary activity. We shall expend all our attention in both those directions.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked

Engagements

Lembit �pik: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 26 May.

Tony Blair: This morning, I held meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Lembit �pik: The Prime Minister will know that the parents of the four recruits who died at Deepcut army barracks are angry about the resistance to holding an independent public inquiry, even though the deputy chief constable of Surrey police, Bob Quick, has said that the issues require further independent scrutiny. Although only a public inquiry can properly address the systemic issues, I ask the Prime Minister to assure me that if the parents ask the Attorney-General to reopen the inquests the Ministry of Defence will not object and that the Ministry and Surrey police will be instructed to co-operate fully.

Tony Blair: May I, first, again offer my condolences to the families of the soldiers who died? The families can, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, apply to the Attorney-General for authority to ask the High Court to order fresh inquests into the deaths. I assure him that we will co-operate fully should such an order be made. There has been a very detailed police investigation of the deaths, with about 900 witnesses being interviewed and 1,500 statements taken over 15 months, and we are grateful to the chief constable of Surrey police for his report. Whatever happens, it is important that we learn the lessons from this and take action now in areas where improvements are needed.

Anne Campbell: I am very pleased to see that there are policy differences on Iraq between my right hon. Friend and President Bush. Will he tell President Bush that it is important that the interim Government in Iraq have as high a status as possible, but that that will be much less likely if the multinational force remains under US command?

Tony Blair: I am sorry to have to disappoint my hon. Friend so early in Prime Minister's questions, but I have to say that we are absolutely agreed that full sovereignty should be transferred to the Iraqi people and that the multinational force should remain under American command, which is natural as they have the vast bulk of the soldiers.

Michael Howard: The Prime Minister said yesterday that while operational control of our troops in Iraq after 30 June must remain with British commanders, final political control over their deployment will be a matter for the Iraqi Government. I make it clear that I support that view, which is entirely consistent with the need for the transfer of sovereignty on 30 June to be real and not cosmetic.
	The Prime Minister also said yesterday that no decision had been taken about increasing the number of British troops in Iraq and that the matter is kept under constant review. What factors will inform that decision, and what would need to change for additional troops to be deployed?

Tony Blair: The factors that influence the decision are the need to ensure that our objectives in Iraq are properly secured, so it is a question of whether any additional troops, or different deployments of troops, would help to secure the objective of a stable and secure Iraq, where there is sufficient security that the political process can work. In the light of some of the comments overnight, I say that there is no doubt at all that the new Iraqi Government must have full sovereignty, that the multinational force remains by consent and that ultimate strategic and political decision making pass to the Iraqi Government after 30 June. Of course, once strategic decisions have been made, the running of any operation will be under the multinational force and its commanders, and there is no question, not merely of US troops, but of UK troops not being able to protect themselves, of their lives being put at risk or of their being under anything other than US and UK command.

Michael Howard: I entirely agree with the force of those comments. For almost a month, British troops have been preparing to leave for Iraq within weeks. It was reported this week that various options were drawn up at a meeting of the armed forces chiefs last week, which are expected to be presented to the Cabinet tomorrow. Does the Prime Minister agree that it would not be acceptable to announce the sending of more troops to Iraq during the parliamentary recess, which begins on Friday?

Tony Blair: I am absolutely sure that Parliament should be kept fully informed of any announcement of additional troops. The reason no decisions have yet been taken is that we are looking at all the strategic options available to us and at the requirements on the ground, but as soon as that is clear we will, of course, inform Parliament.

Kate Hoey: Would the Prime Minister like to give a formal welcome to the visit of the Dalai Lama this week? Given that he has known for some six months that the Dalai Lama is visiting, is he really telling us that he could not find half an hour in his timetable next week to meet the Dalai Lama? Is that because he has been told not to do so by the Chinese?

Tony Blair: No, it is not. I have met the Dalai Lama on previous occasions, and I will be very happy to meet him again on subsequent occasions. Tibet is a matter of concern not just to Labour Members but to Members on both sides of the House. We raise the issue constantly with the Chinese, most recently on the visit of Premier Wen, when we had a significant and long discussion on Tibet.

Charles Kennedy: Following the exchanges of a few moments ago, when I asked the Prime Minister last week whether the transfer of full sovereignty in Iraq would mean that the new Government there would have control over their prisons, the Prime Minister replied:
	The answer to that is yes. The new Iraqi Government must have full sovereignty after 30 June. That will give them the rights that all sovereign Governments have.[Official Report, 19 May 2004; Vol. 421, c. 972.]
	However, just over an hour ago, I received a faxed letter from the Prime Minister's office, in which he goes on to say:
	The exact division of responsibilities for prisons and detainees policy is one of the issues we will need to discuss in detail with the interim Government, once announced, as part of the wider discussions about the mandate of the multinational force.
	Will the Prime Minister tell us whether, in the light of that recently received clarification, he is now stepping back from the categorical assurance that he gave last week?

Tony Blair: No, I am not stepping back from it at all. After the transfer of sovereignty on 30 June, the ultimate decision about whose control the prisons remain under has to be a matter for the Iraqi Government. All that I explain to the right hon. Gentleman in the letter is that until the Iraqis have the capabilityfor example, sufficient trained prison officersthere may well be a division of responsibilities between the multinational force and the Iraqis, but the ultimate political decision making and control will rest with the sovereign Iraqi Government. I hope that that is clear.

Charles Kennedy: But does not the shift in clarification on so many issues from one week to the next show what has bedevilled the entire situation? What, for example, would the Prime Minister say in response to General Zinni, who was President Bush's special envoy to the area in the build-up to the war, because he has said that the preparations were characterised by
	false rationales presented as justification; a flawed strategy; lack of planning; the unnecessary alienation of our allies; the underestimation of the task; and the unnecessary distraction from the real threats?
	Has not this entire sorry episode, before and after, been characterised by inadequacy at the political top?

Tony Blair: The fact is that those people who are against the conflict remain against the conflict. In relation to the issue of sovereignty, let me make one thing clear to the right hon. Gentleman: there is a difference between sovereignty being transferred to the Iraqi Governmentthat should be full and undiminished sovereigntyand the practical necessity that multinational forces will have to remain to support the new Iraqi Government. That will meanin relation to operations or, for example, the running of the prisonsthat there will have to be a division of responsibility, but the point is that, after 30 June, the forces remain there with the consent of the Iraqi Government and not otherwise. I would have thought that that is clear.
	As for the aftermath of the war in Iraq, there will, of course, be people who carry on making criticisms of the war. I simply say that the right hon. Gentleman must accept that his position is such that if we had done what he had wanted us to do, Saddam Hussein would still be running Iraq. I have to face up to the consequences of the decision that I took but, with respect, he has to face up to the consequences of the position that he took.

Clive Efford: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Conservatives have threatened to reintroduce the poll tax. Those of us who were in local government when the poll tax was introduced will not only recall the cuts that accompanied it, but its intrinsic unfairness, particularly to low-income households and the elderly. Will he confirm that this Government will relish the battle against the Conservatives in the current elections, with the Conservatives having resurrected the spectre of the poll tax?

Tony Blair: I can assure my hon. Friend that we will not introduce anything as damaging as the poll tax, which was once described by the Leader of the Opposition as right and fair. Neither will we reintroduce 3 million unemployed and underinvestment in our national health service.

Michael Howard: The CBI says that the temporary workers directive would cost Britain 160,000 jobs, and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry says that it is a litmus test of Europe's commitment to economic reform. Will the Prime Minister therefore join me in condemning Labour Members of the European Parliament, who rejected his advice and voted in favour of it in the European Parliament?

Tony Blair: We have made it clear that we believe that changes to the directive are necessary. That is precisely what we are trying to secure, and I point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that since this Government joined the social chapterwhich he said would cause the loss of 1 million jobs in the UKemployment has actually increased by 2 million.

Michael Howard: I am not surprised that the Prime Minister does not want to talk about his Members of the European Parliament. His Government have estimated that extending the working time directive would cost British business at least 9 billion, but his Members of the European Parliament have rejected his advice on that as well. They voted in favour of extending it. Will he join me in condemning the voting of his Labour Members of the European Parliament on that issue?

Tony Blair: We have made it clear, as I said a moment ago, why we believe that changes are necessary to the working time directive. However, let me just point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it is this Government who have managed to increase employment in British industry, and it is not this Government who put 17 per cent. interest rates on British industry. That is why this Government continue to operate in the interests of the economy and jobs.

Michael Howard: All the questions were about Labour Members of the European Parliament, and we have not had any answers to them. Is it not true that the Government have given up completely on their Members of the European Parliament, so much so that when the Leader of the House was Minister for Europe he had to go pleading to Conservative Members of the European Parliament to vote Labour Members of the European Parliament down? After all this trouble from Labour Members of the European Parliament, will not the Prime Minister be as relieved as the rest of us when there are fewer of them after 10 June?

Tony Blair: When we are talking about hon. Members of the European Parliament, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should pay a little attention to what his noble Friend Lord Tebbit said the other day. He said that Tory European election candidates
	have been strong-armed into affiliation to the federalist European People's Party
	and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was anaesthetising them
	into acquiescence of a bland, centrist, politically correct agenda.
	He should take up issues of the European Parliament with his own side, not mine.

Sandra Osborne: May I thank the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for introducing assistance for those people who will lose their pensions when their company goes into receivership? That has come as welcome news to more than 200 of my constituents. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that those affected are made aware of how they stand as soon as possible?

Tony Blair: As we said last week, we will engage in detailed discussions with unions, employers and others to try to make sure that the money that we have set aside is used most valuably. This is a good example of how people, when they are genuinely in trouble, are helped by the Government. It is important that we recognise that this is a distinct group of people who had to contribute to their occupational pension. In future, people will be protected by the new legislation that the Government are introducing.

Tony Baldry: The Commission for Africa brings a welcome focus on the need to renew the war on poverty, but do we not need a new commission that can advise us how to restore and repair the fractured relations between ourselves and the world of Islam?

Tony Blair: I am not sure that a commission is the right means of doing that, although I do not exclude the possibility, but I entirely agree with the basic premise of the hon. Gentleman's question, which is that there is a real issue about the relationship between the Arab and Muslim world and the west. I happen to believe, as he probably does, that much of that is based on misunderstanding and on propaganda aimed at dividing the two of us, but it is important that we try to look for ways to heal that rift, because it is immensely dangerous. It is certainly something that we are considering, and it will form a major part of our G8 discussions in a few days.

Llew Smith: The Secretary of State for Wales recently described the announcement by Coleg Gwent to close certain college departments in the county, in particular those teaching engineering, catering and other courses in my constituency, as astonishing. Does the Prime Minister accept that removing a skill base adds to the difficulty in trying to attract highly skilled engineering jobs to an area still suffering from high unemployment and steel closures? Does he also accept the difficulty of developing tourism in what is one of the most beautiful parts of Wales when the catering department is being closed? Will he instruct the Secretary of State to meet the First Minister of the Welsh Assembly to discuss the issue and to put pressure on those who made the decisions to withdraw the closure programme, because the management and corporation of Coleg Gwent and, indeed, Education and Learning Wales

Mr. Speaker: Order. The supplementary question is too long.

Tony Blair: I recognise my hon. Friend's concern because I know that the area that he represents has suffered unemployment difficulties with the losses at Corus. I understand that the Secretary of State has already met the First Minister to discuss the issue, and I know that my right hon. Friend is happy to meet my hon. Friend to take the issue forward. I am sure that my hon. Friend's views will be closely considered.

Bob Russell: Does the Prime Minister know where Saddam Hussein is and whether he is still alive? Is he aware what measures the Americans are taking to encourage Saddam Hussein to reveal the whereabouts of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction?

Tony Blair: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I know where Saddam Hussein is not: he is not in a presidential palace running Iraq; he is not brutalising his people; he is not threatening the security of his region, and this world is a safer, better place without him in government.

Jim Knight: Dorset receives the lowest local government settlement of any of the shire counties in England. Will the Prime Minister reflect on that, given that many of my constituents are dependent on council services? Can he reassure them that he rejects the proposals of other Dorset politicians, who advocate swingeing cuts in local government funding as part of plans for massive public spending cuts?

Tony Blair: I am pleased that we have increased the grant to Dorset by 6.3 per cent. this year, well above the national average, and that we have increased the grant to councils by 30 per cent. in real terms since 1997, compared with a 7 per cent. real-terms cut in the last four years of the Conservative Government. I can assure him that we will not follow the path set out by the shadow Chancellor of freezing, in real terms, council expenditure, which would be a 2.5 billion cut in services.

Ann Winterton: The Prime Minister will be aware that people in the Congleton and Tatton constituencies have opposed Scottish Power's bid for an underground gas storage plant at Byley. Our constituents won their case, only for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to overrule the decision of one its own inspectors. What is the point of holding an expensive, five-week public inquiry if its findings are set aside in such a cavalier fashion by someone who has presumably not even set eyes on the site?

Tony Blair: There is a process in place, and it must be followed through. The hon. Lady will know that, under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, anyone who wants to challenge a decision can ask for it to be referred to the High Court and that that has to be done within six weeks of the date of the decision. Of course, there has been a thorough-going consultation with everyone involved, but in the end it is a planning process and has to be handled in the normal way.

Eric Martlew: My right hon. Friend will be aware that yesterday the boundary committee published proposals for unitary authority boundaries in areas that are holding elections for regional assemblies. Does he not agree that we need to get rid of two-tier local government up and down the country, whether we get a yes vote in the regional assemblies or not, as it is inefficient, expensive and bureaucratic?

Tony Blair: We welcome the completion of a significant step towards the holding of referendums for elected regional assemblies in the autumn. We will consider carefully the final recommendations, and decide what options for unitary local government we will put to the electorate in any forthcoming referendums. I am sure that my hon. Friend is right that while there is a powerful argument for regional government so that decisions are taken closer to the people, it is none the less correct to make tiers of local government underneath regional government unitary because that would be more effective.

Elfyn Llwyd: Does the Prime Minister agree that an administration that took over a severely debt-ridden council, saved 2,000 jobs when people were threatened with redundancy, leads the way in waste recycling and became the first Welsh council to be shortlisted by the Local Government Chronicle as the most improved council in the UK, deserves the support of electors?

Tony Blair: I have a feeling that the hon. Gentleman may be missing out a few facts. I am afraid that, before I give him a considered answer, I will look into them.

Andy King: Will my right hon. Friend continue his commitment to invest in our health services? My own hospital trust has improved dramatically from zero stars to two stars under this Government, and St. Cross hospital in Rugby, which was doomed to closure under the Conservatives, now has a new orthopaedic ward, a new stroke ward, 24 additional consultants and a magnetic resonance imaging scanner

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Gentleman is saying that the Prime Minister is doing a good job.

Tony Blair: It does indeed take a long time to list the achievements of the national health service as a result of that investment. Every waiting time and waiting list is better than it was in 1997, we have record investment going into the national health servicethat applies to in-patients and out-patientsand we know that all of that would be put at risk by the patient's passport.

James Arbuthnot: Ten years ago, a Chinook helicopter crashed on the Mull of Kintyre. The pilots, who were killed in the crash, were later held to be guilty of negligence. Now that the Prime Minister of the time, John Major, and the Defence Secretary of the time, Malcolm Rifkind, have said that that unjust verdict should be overturned, will the Prime Minister agree to have a meeting with an all-party group to bring fairness and a conclusion to this matter?

Tony Blair: I am, of course, always prepared to meet an all-party group on the issue. I will look at it in the light of what has been said by the previous Prime Minister, but I give no guarantees that we will change the decision. A decision was taken at the time, which was endorsed by this Government as well, but I understand the very strong feelings that there are, not least among the families of the pilots. I am very happy to meet an all-party group, but that has to be done without any prior commitment or guarantee as to what the outcome would be.

David Borrow: The boundary committee referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) yesterday recommended that the West Lancashire district council area should be split between Wigan in Greater Manchester and Sefton in Merseyside. That would be disastrous for my constituents living in west Lancashire and would risk undermining the referendum campaign in the autumn. Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) to discuss ways of improving that recommendation?

Tony Blair: Of course, I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend. We must consider any recommendations or representations that are made, but no decisions have been taken. If an area is to move towards regional government so that decision making, as it is now in Scotland and Wales, for example, is taken closer to the people, it is important that underneath that the local authority system is made more effective.

John Hayes: The green belt is supposed to be a parcel of land around urban areas to prevent them from encroaching into the countryside, so why are the Government building on the inner green belt and adding to it only in areas of the north of England, far from where development pressure is greatest? The Library says that answers on the subject so far from Ministers are imprecise and evasive. Why are the Government being evasive about their greenbelt policy? What do they have to hide?

Tony Blair: We have increased the amount of green belt, not reduced it, since we came to power[Interruption.] Oh yes, and what is more, I tell Conservative Members that we have increased the proportion of development on brownfield sites from where it was under the Conservatives. But every responsible person knows that in the south of the country in particular, there is a requirement for additional housing, and if we do not face up to the decisions on that the people who will suffer are generations to come, particularly first-time buyers, who will not have a place to live. The present Government have protected the green belt a darn sight better than the last one.

David Winnick: I supported getting rid of Saddam Hussein and I offer no apologies for that, but has not the reputation of the coalition forces suffered great damage in the past few months owing to the sickening abuses and crimes carried out in the main by American personnel against Iraqi detainees? Would it not help the credibility of the United States and the coalition if the United States Defence Secretary and his deputy had enough self-respect to resign their positions?

Tony Blair: I have already made clear my own views on what happened at Abu Ghraib prison, as indeed have the United States Administration. I am sure my hon. Friend recognises that at the same time as we condemn unreservedly and without qualification what took place at Abu Ghraib and indeed any abuse of Iraqi prisoners, it is worth pointing out that British and American soldiers risk their lives, and in some cases lose their lives, in order to help Iraqi people. That balance should be maintained.

Tim Boswell: The Prime Minister knows that the east midlands is one of the all-postal pilot regions for electoral purposes, and also that the ballot papers are due to be distributed about today. Is he aware, however, as I have just become, that printing delays mean that local authority ballot papers are not yet even in the hands of the returning officers, and that they are unlikely to be available before the weekend? Will he intervene immediately to forestall an electoral shambles?

Tony Blair: Like the hon. Gentleman, I became aware shortly before Prime Minister's questions that there was an issue in relation to the ballot papers. I am told that returning officers are on target to post ballot packs by the deadline on 1 June. We have confidence that the regional returning officers will be able to rise to the challenge. However, as a result of the information that has come to us this morning, I will look into the matter and make sure that the measures that have been taken are sufficient to meet the challenge.

Stephen McCabe: I welcome the news that there is to be a review of our outdated gun laws, but does the Prime Minister share my astonishment that Home Office officials have ruled out action on replica weapons before the consultation even takes place and in the very week that the report by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, Guns, Community and Police, cites replica and imitation weapons as a major part of the problem? Surely that makes a nonsense of the whole process. Can he do something about it?

Tony Blair: As my hon. Friend will know, we have introduced tougher controls on imitation firearms. In particular, there is now a new arrestable offence under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 of carrying an imitation firearm in public without reasonable excuse. Any imitation firearm that is readily convertible to fire live rounds is now classed as a prohibited firearm, and there is a minimum sentence of five years for carrying such a firearm. The Home Office review is absolutely open. As he and other hon. Members will readily understand, the problem is exactly how to define an imitation firearm. We must ensure that we get this right, to target the evil to which he rightly draws attention without having an arrangement that is overly and unnecessarily bureaucratic and that would end up disrupting people in a way that we do not intend.

Opposition Day
	  
	[12th Allotted Day]

Local Government Finance

Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Philip Hammond: I beg to move,
	That this House notes that each year the Government has pledged a 'generous' increase in local government funding, yet council tax in England has on average risen by three times the rate of inflation every year since 1997; observes that the cumulative additional council tax burden since 1997/98 is 1,716 for a typical Band D household; deplores the failure of the Government to recognise its role in generating the underlying pressures leading to council tax increases, including new responsibilities, compliance requirements, red tape, targets and assessments imposed by central Government on local authorities; further notes that unfunded cost pressures force councils either to introduce disproportionate increases in council taxes or cut local front line services; and believes that this is a further indicator of growing centralisation and Whitehall interference in local communities, eroding local democracy and weakening democratic accountability.
	In just over two weeks' time, local elections will be taking place across much of the United Kingdom. The Conservative party believes in the importance of local democracy and local democratic accountability. That is why we alone of the major parties are fighting the local elections on local issues and, in particular, on the record of the Conservative party in local governmenta proud record of delivering better services at a lower cost than councils of any other political persuasion. That is the key measure of local government performance, and if we are to have a reinvigorated local democracy, which the Opposition support, and a restored sense of local accountability, there must be transparency about the relationship between council taxes and local decisions, and clarity about where responsibility lies for the pressures that lead to increases in council tax.

Ivan Henderson: One of the proposals at the moment is the introduction of a local sales tax, which the Institute for Fiscal Studies said would be a local tax on the poor. Under the proposal, some 12,000 households in my constituency that now receive council tax rebates would lose that support. Will the hon. Gentleman stand at the Dispatch Box and reject such proposals, which are being put forward by the Tory candidate in my constituency?

Philip Hammond: I am somewhat surprised that the first intervention in this debate was about local sales tax. I was anticipating that it might have been otherwise. I will not rule out suggestions of a local sales tax any more than I suspect that the Minister will rule them out. Like us, he is awaiting the outcome of the balance of funding review, which I believe is having its last meeting today. We will see what the balance of funding review has to say about the various options that it has considered. When we have that information, we can have an informed debate in the House about the future of local government finance. I accept the point that the hon. Gentleman makes and his reservations about local sales tax. I could list a number of other reservations about the practicality of such a tax, but I think that it is important that we are prepared to look at the output of this very important review, in which Conservative local government players have been participating along with members of other parties.

Nick Raynsford: The balance of funding review will have further meetings, as well as the one that is taking place today. I also remind the hon. Gentleman that in last week's Opposition Day debate initiated by the Liberal Democrats, I made it clear that the proposal for a local sales tax met none of the objectives for fairness and effectiveness and was therefore, in our view, entirely inappropriate. I am surprised that he has not taken a similar view.

Philip Hammond: The Minister seems to be prejudging the outcome of his own review, which is surprising. He says that further meetings will occur, but last week he indicated that he hopes to publish the results of the review before the House rises for the summer recess, and I hope that those meetings will not prevent him from doing so.
	Over the past few weeks, the House has had several opportunities to debate local government finance. We have debated the capping regime, the budgets set by local authorities, the balance of funding review itself and alternative proposals for funding local government, including local income tax, which the Liberal Democrats favour and which would impose an extra 693 a year tax burden on the average, hard-working family.
	In the frenzy to cap, review and replace council tax, it might be too easy to lose sight of the central point: council tax has gone through the roof under this Labour Government, and its level is leading to widespread discontent with the system. Under this Government, the average band D council tax has increased by 70 per cent. to a record 1,167 a year, which is nearly 100 a month out of taxed, take-home income.

Henry Bellingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have adopted a relentless, systematic and cynical policy of moving money from the shire counties to the inner cities, which has left counties such as Norfolk and Suffolk in an impossible position? There is nothing inherently wrong with council tax; what is wrong is how the Government have behaved.

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend is right. Labour's operation of council tax has raised two problems: first, fiddled funding and, secondly, the imposition of unfunded cost burdens on local government. The Audit Commission acknowledges that the Government have been shifting funding away from the south-east to the north and the midlands.

Michael Jabez Foster: rose

Andrew Miller: rose

Philip Hammond: I shall make some progress, and then I shall give way.
	Before we go any further on capping regimes or reviewing alternatives to council tax, we should examine more carefully the drivers behind soaring council tax. In most cases, those drivers are outside the control of local government, and many of them have got central Government's fingerprints all over them. The purpose of today's debate, which has been called in Opposition time, is to focus attention on the underlying cause of high council tax increases: the burdens imposed by central Government.

Andrew Miller: Just for clarity, is the hon. Gentleman actually saying to the people of Cheshire that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local and Regional Government was wrong to shift the balance to correct the huge disadvantage introduced by the original formula?

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) is absolutely right when he says that the changes in the funding formula have shifted funding from some authorities to others, which has driven council tax increases in those authorities that were losers in that process, and I shall return to that point.

Michael Jabez Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Philip Hammond: I shall give way in just a moment.
	Honesty and transparency on the causes of soaring council tax and on the responsibility for the additional burdens now being borne by local council tax payers are essential if the elections on 10 June are to be an opportunity for the electorate to pass well informed judgment on local government up and down the country. Those elections are also an opportunity to send a message to this meddlesome, interfering, bureaucratic Government about the cost burdens that they are imposing on local councils, which local councils are forced to pass on to council tax payers.
	When the Minister made his capping statement four weeks ago, he performed a ritualalthough it was the first time that he has capped, I have seen the routine before. He built up a head of righteous indignation about proposed council tax increases, claiming that they are unjustified because
	the Government have provided all local authorities with above-inflation increases in general grant.[Official Report, 29 April 2004; Vol. 420, c. 1019.]
	Every year we hear that the settlement is generous and that above-inflation council tax rises will not be necessary, and every year average rises are three times the rate of inflation. The implication of the Minister's view, which is deeply resented by well-run local authorities of all persuasions, is that council tax increases are the result of incompetence, inefficiency or sheer bloody-mindedness.

Peter Pike: I was a member of the Committee that considered the Local Government Finance Act 1992, which introduced the current system of local government taxation. At that time, we pointed out that the biggest single problem was the gearing factor, which causes massive council tax increases. Will the hon. Gentleman admit that that is a serious flaw in the current system?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman should know about massive council tax rises, as during this Government's period in office his local authority has increased council tax by 60 per cent.
	Let us analyse the Minister's statement on capping. He said that the floors and ceilings imposed in this year's settlement ensured that all local authorities received an increase above the retail price increase: a minimum of 3 per cent. for shire districts and 4 per cent. for social services and education authorities. However, the combination of the operation of the ceiling limiting the increase for areas of population growth such as Telford and Wrekin, which is one of the Minister's capping victims; the passporting of education spending above formula spending share; and the effects of transitional phasing of changes in the grant distribution introduced in 200304 meant that many authorities would face the need for above-inflation council tax increases, even if it were true that 3 per cent. and 4 per cent. respectively represented a real measure of local government inflationbut it does not. As the Minister well knows, local government inflationary pressures are significantly higher than the increases in the retail price index, and the negative effects of many Government policy decisions are magnified because of the nature of the services that local government delivers and the type of work force who are employed to do so.
	The Audit Commission's report into the causes of high council tax increases in 200304 estimates that local authorities collectively face some 2.3 billion of national cost pressures in respect of existing services. That is more than half the total increase in local authority spending. The Local Government Association estimates that local government inflation is running at between 4 and 6 per cent. Some authoritiesfor example, Kent, which recently made a submission to the Treasury in support of its positionargue that local pressures effectively leave them with higher still rates of inflation.
	We accept, of course, that there is no typical local authority, because each one faces a different mix of local cost pressures on top of national ones. Leaving local variations aside, however, it is simply disingenuous for central Government to ignore the real local government inflation rate, and it is frankly misleading to describe a 3 per cent. grant increase as above inflation in any way that is meaningful to local government.

Nick Raynsford: I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman with considerable interest. Will he explain to the House how his policy, as set out by the shadow Chancellor, to freeze expenditure on all but two defined public servicesthereby freezing at inflation the vast majority of local authority expenditurecan be reconciled with his argument?

Philip Hammond: As the Minister knows, school spending[Interruption.] The Minister dismisses that with a wave of the hand, but it happens to represent 40 per cent. of local government spending, which is a fairly large slice, and we have made it explicitly clear that it will be increased. Beyond that, as the Minister knows, the overall total for all services across all departments will be frozen for a period while we try to plug the fiscal black hole that we will have inherited from this Labour Government[Interruption.] The Minister is waving his hands again. He appears not to have read what his colleague the Chancellor said in his Budget speechthat he could make 2.5 per cent. efficiency savings by cutting 40,000 jobs. The Secretary of State for Health has identified substantial savings that he can make in his Department's budget. Surely the Minister is not suggesting that during an initial two-year period we cannot identify waste and bureaucracy that can deliver the savings that need to be made.

Patrick McLoughlin: Did my hon. Friend notice that last week, when the Secretary of State for Health announced that he would be able to cut bureaucracy, he said that he intended to do so by disestablishing about five groups that have been set up since 1997?

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Having spent valuable weeks of my life in Standing Committee establishing the National Care Standards Commission, I was dismayed to see that the Government are ripping up that legislation, which is only a few years old, in order to introduce yet more different tiers and types of bureaucracy.

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman has confirmed that the Conservatives plan to cut local government expenditure by 2.5 billion. If he is trying to claim that those cuts will be achieved through reduced waste and bureaucracy, when will he identify that waste and bureaucracy? Will it be before the election?

Philip Hammond: First, the hon. Gentleman needs to listen more carefully. I was careful to re-emphasise that my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor said that he will freeze spending on other departmental totals in aggregate. I realise that Labour Members do not find it convenient to acknowledge that. Nothing has been said about local government grant spending. Where the savings will be made to achieve that depends to a large extent on the work that the James review is undertaking on the scope for savings on waste and bureaucracy in government. The Government's parallel review is also examining that.

Roger Casale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Philip Hammond: I must make a little progress but I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman.
	Central Government are responsible for many of the cost pressures on local government. Employers' national insurance increases have added 280 million a year to the pay bill. Labour's pension tax has hit local authority pension funds by an annual figure, which is now close to 250 million. The need to make good the hit on those funds has compounded the pressure on local authorities, which are already facing additional contributions as a result of the previous revaluation, and will probably be confronted with even higher contributions through the next revaluation.

John Redwood: Has my hon. Friend noticed that Liberal Democrat councils are the worst offenders, shoving up council tax much faster even than Labour, let alone prudent Conservative councils? Is it not a bit rich that they now want a rip-off local income taxa Liberal Democrat hand in your pocketto pay for their spendthrift ways? Will he condemn that and say just how much it will cost us?

Philip Hammond: My right hon. Friend is right. I condemn it absolutely and have already said that the Liberal Democrat local income tax proposal would impose a tax burden of an extra 693 a year on the average working family.

Nigel Evans: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Philip Hammond: I must make a little more progress.
	Public sector pay settlements have run significantly ahead of RPI and thus represent a pressure over and above that included in the RPI figure. The most graphic example is last year's teachers' pay settlement at 2.9 per cent., leaving employers with a 60 million unfunded shortfall over and above the spending for which the Government had budgeted. Local authorities also have to face the cost of the pay evaluation exercise and work force reform in schools.
	Let me run through the list of cost pressures that local government faces in delivering existing services. Losses due to the changes in the system of rent allowances and housing benefits, although capped, continue to represent a significant hit on some shire district councils. At every level, local government faces a wave of litigation costs. The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment has calculated that local authorities face bogus or excessive claims of 117 million per annum above the cost of legitimate claims. Before someone asks, I have no idea why the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment is putting the figures together.
	Manchester's litigation budget is bigger than that for repairing broken paving slabsthe cause of many claims. Bradford city council has had to set aside 5 million for the potential cost of meeting a retrospective claim for equal pay, which is being brought on a no win, no fee basis. Doubtless other local authorities will be watching that case with some trepidation.
	The Home Secretary has bailed out the Criminal Records Bureau, which has already piled costs on to local authorities through its spectacular inefficiency, with a massive 142 per cent. increase in fees. That is an additional burden of 15 million on local government. Personal social services costs are escalating out of control. Care of the elderly and looked-after children are both demand-led services, the demand for which is soaring, and which central Government consistently underestimate in setting notional budgets.
	Unit costs are spiralling. We warned the Government that the Care Standards Act 2000 would have a disastrous effect on the availability of care places and their cost unless funding were increased significantly. It has devastated the sector. Rising staff costs, soaring property values and the imposition of new standards and inspection regimes have caused many care home operators to exit the market, squeezing supply and leading to rising costs for local authority purchases.

Nigel Evans: My hon. Friend has gone through a list of pressures that have led to huge council tax increases over the past seven years, particularly in Lancashire. Does he agree that if the people of the northern regionsincluding the north-west, where the Ribble Valley constituency liesvote for regional government in the referendums, that will not only add huge increases to the council tax bills of everyone living in the north-west, but, thanks to the decision announced by the boundary committee yesterday, make local government far more remote from local people, not closer to them?

Philip Hammond: That would make local government more remote from the people and it would cost the council tax payer. The Government are insisting on reorganising local government in any area that is foolish enough to choose an elected regional assembly on unitary lines. Cambridge university estimates that the cost of local government reorganisation alone would add 110 to a band D council tax bill, and that is before taking any account of any local precepting power that regional assemblies may be given under the regional assemblies Bill, which we have not yet seen.

Several hon. Members: rose

Philip Hammond: I must make progress. There is a very long list of burdens that this Government are imposing on local authorities and I want to ensure that the House is aware of them all.
	All social services authorities face bed-blocking fines, for which some funding has been provided, and the associated bureaucracy, for which none has been provided. Hampshire county council has received 1.2 million from the Department of Health as a grant so that it can recycle it as fines to the local NHS acute hospitals, but it has had to take on an extra 28 people to manage the flow of paperwork and payments and to monitor the systeman extra council tax burden and a piece of absurd bureaucracy.
	The landfill tax escalatorincreases in the landfill tax without any offsetting reductions elsewhereis rising to 18 a tonne in April next year and is destined eventually to get to 34 a tonne. It may raise the Treasury 600 million this year, but 360 million of that 600 million will be paid by local authorities, which are by far the largest disposers of waste. All those specific and explicit cost pressures come on top of the pernicious and substantial cost of grade inflation, to which authorities in low unemployment areas are routinely forced to succumb in order to recruit and retain the staff they need to continue to deliver local services.

Keith Simpson: I had not wanted to interrupt the long list of extra burdens that the Government are putting on local authorities, but is my hon. Friend aware that many of these initiatives are being introduced simultaneously? I give him a concrete example from my constituency: Broadland district council wrote to me the other day to say that the extra increases in recycling requirements and for wheelie bins, for example, mean that the market cannot cope, so, on average, if people can get hold of a wheelie bin, it costs 2 to 3 more, which, cumulatively, adds another 120,000 to 180,000. That is a practical example. There is a blizzard of these initiatives coming in, and local government is in despair.

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have reached the end of my list of burdens causing cost pressures on existing services, but I have not yet started on the list of new initiatives that central Government are imposing on local authorities, including initiatives related to waste management.
	As a result of the national cost pressures that I have outlined, as well as many others that we do not have time to go into, many authorities face the need to make above-inflation council tax increases, even before taking into account the burden imposed by the wasteful inspection and audit regime, the effect of passporting and the additional responsibilities being imposedyear in, year outon local government.

Richard Younger-Ross: rose

Philip Hammond: Some additional burdens

Henry Bellingham: Do not forget Younger-Ross.

Philip Hammond: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Gentleman is throwing figures around like confetti, but will he confirm that the key figure is this: the average increase under Conservative councils for the last six years is 8.9 per cent., which is larger than for all the other parties?

Philip Hammond: I suspect that the key figure for most council tax payers is this: despite the fiddled funding and the new burdens, Conservative councils cost an average of 57 less under band D council tax[Interruption.] The Minister says no, but Conservative councils cost an average of 57 less under band D council tax than either Labour or Liberal Democrat-controlled authorities in England.
	Some additional burdens on local government that I shall discuss in a moment represent genuine services delivered to the public, but the red tape and regulation of the Government's barrage of different inspection regimes are pure dead weight on the shoulders of local government. Local authorities are subject to best value performance indicators and plans, comprehensive performance assessment, examination by the Commission for Social Care Inspection, the Ofsted process, scrutiny by the benefit fraud inspectorate and the adult learning inspectorate, as well as inspection by something called the Office of Surveillance Commissioners.
	The Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates the annual direct cost of external inspection of local government functions to have been 600 million in 200001. It notes that that figure excludes indirect costslocal authority compliance, avoidance costs and opportunity costs, not to mention the negative impact of such a prescriptive regime on local initiative and staff morale.
	Overall, the Local Government Information Unit estimates that those indirect costs added a further 400 million a year in 2002. That cost will have risen since, as comprehensive performance assessments have been rolled out to all tiers of local government, making the current cost of the Government's bureaucratic inspection regime well in excess of 1 billion a year. Early promises that high-performing councils would be subject to less inspection have not materialised; nor has the promised exemption from capping.
	Guildford borough councila Conservative-run council rated excellent by its comprehensive performance assessmenthad to submit nearly 900 different files of paperwork to get the rating. For ease, it put them on CD-ROM. That amounts to 400 megabytes of information that had to be prepared and checked by council staff, all at the expense of local council tax payers, of whom, incidentally, I happen to be one.
	A Local Government Association publication, Improving the Quality of Life for Local Communities, contains an informative cameo relating to one district council employee's experience of the inspection regime. Let me give the House a flavour of it:
	During the autumn of 2003 we had a three week performance indicator audit . . .
	Then came the supporting people inspection team, which spent a week inspecting procedures in housing and benefits . . . and a short visit from the DVLC inspection service . . .
	This was swiftly followed by a best value inspection for street cleaning services . . .
	Immediately after was a visit by the Surveillance Commission . . . Whilst all this was going on the district auditor was inspecting our final accounts arrangements . . . we were having to produce our IEG3 (implementing electronic government) statement to the government office, receiving feedback on our capital strategy and asset management strategy (which had to be submitted to the government officer earlier on in the year), and work on the submission of our Housing Investment Strategy and Business Plan which has to be submitted to the government office.
	Oblivious to the pressure and demands on us, the government office were continuing to send out requests for informationwe had to fill in a resilience questionnaire . . . we were asked to submit a crime and disorder self assessment document, provide information illustrating local application of 'liveability' initiatives, just to mention a few of these requests . . .
	The Benefit fraud inspectorate are coming tomorrow.
	That is just one small shire district council. Conservatives have pledged to slash the 1 billion-plus wasted on these centralised local government inspectorates.

Roger Casale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Philip Hammond: In a moment. We will abolish the bloated comprehensive performance assessment and axe the so-called best value system. We believe that the whole inspection regime should be scaled back to a light-touch approach appropriate to the risk. That means leaving competent councils to get on with the job, with only occasional inspection, while focusing attention on the small number of failing, mainly Labour and Liberal Democrat-run councils. The cost of the audit inspection process and the diversion of officer time and attention from the delivery of front-line services add to the sense of frustration and disempowerment in local government, and must be stopped.
	On schools passporting, even after the 340 million of additional money that the Government found this year to avoid another fiasco in schools, there are still six education authorities with education spending above the formula spending share, for which passporting has been a trap that led to their entire grant increase from central Government being passported to schools. Clearly, for those councils the Minister's insistence that all authorities have had an above-inflation grant increase has a particularly hollow ring.
	They have no choice but to cut services elsewhere and raise council taxes. A regime that penalises those who were voluntarily spending above their formula spending share on schools has to be wrong, and clearly sets perverse incentives for the future.
	As if there were not enough central Government burdens already, local authorities face myriad new responsibilities. High among them is the waste management agenda. The European Union's landfill directive, which requires a significant reduction in landfill, and the Government's waste recycling targets, which they have introduced in an attempt to achieve that objective, impose huge additional burdens on local authorities.

Nick Raynsford: No.

Philip Hammond: The Minister says No, but the LGA estimates that local government will need half a billion pounds over each of the next three years to achieve the targets that the Government have set.

Nick Raynsford: Does the hon. Gentleman not recall that when the Chancellor announced the changes to the landfill escalator in his pre-Budget report, he made it clear that arrangements were being made to ensure that the impact on local authorities would be cost-neutral?

Philip Hammond: This is the point of today's debate. We hear it all the time: The impact will be cost-neutral. If the Minister talks to the LGA, he will find that it is a recurrent theme. In discussions with Departments and agencies, local government is told that the impact will be cost-neutraland what local government invariably finds is that the regulatory impact assessments are inadequate. They underestimate the cost, and local government and council tax payers ultimately pick up the tab. That is part of the reason for Labour's soaring council taxes.

Andrew Selous: My hon. Friend mentioned the costs of litigation to local authorities. Does he agree that it is shameful that authorities such as mine, South Bedfordshire district council, are forced to spend huge amounts of council tax payers' money to fight the planning system, when the Government could very simply apply stop and enforcement orders to unauthorised Traveller developments? That is unacceptable to council tax payers.

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the large amount of unplanned expenditure that local planning authorities often incur in dealing with unexpected major planning inquiries. He knows that I am very sympathetic about the particular case he mentions. I am glad to see that the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), is present, as she is aware of our concern.
	Only last week my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) told the House that his council's effort to meet the Government's waste recycling targets had led it initially to propose a 30 per cent. increase in its council tax, just to fund that initiative. That is only one of many examples of good local authorities' diligently seeking to comply with the guidance and directives of central Government, as they are bound to do, without the funding to do it. The end-of-life vehicle directive will in the short term increase the number of abandoned cars, and in the medium term substantially increase local authorities' disposal costs.
	Quite rightly, all local authorities have stepped up their emergency planning in the wake of 11 Septemberincluding district authorities, which receive no funds at all for that activity. Upper-tier and unitary authorities are estimated to be spending 17 million above the funded level on emergency planning. Following the Licensing Act 2003, there will be an increase of between 500 and 1,000 per cent. in the number of premises that local authorities are expected to license. Fees will be set centrally. That is something over which local authorities have no control, and there are real fears that year-on-year revenue costs will exceed the fee revenue generated. The immediate concern, however, is that there is no provision anywhere for the start-up costs. Authorities are estimating first-year deficits of anything between 40,000 and 700,000, depending on the size of the authority. Those deficits will have to be met by council tax payers.
	Compliance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 will impose substantial direct and indirect costs on authorities. Many are recruiting full-time compliance officers, and anyone who understands how institutions respond to freedom of information will be aware of the huge additional indirect cost that is incurred as working practices change and sensitive material is handled differently in response to freedom of information pressures.

Roger Casale: rose

Philip Hammond: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, as he has been very persistent.

Roger Casale: The hon. Gentleman is giving a very detailed exposition of local government finances, but what seems to be completely absent from itI do not know whether he has a blind spot, or is conveniently leaving this outis any mention of areas in which costs have actually gone down. I am thinking of, for instance, the lower costs of servicing local government debt when interest rates are as low as 4 or 5 per cent. rather than 14 or 15 per cent., as they were under the last Government; or, indeed, the costs of collecting council tax. I wonder what the costs of collecting council tax would be if the Conservatives ever returned to power and reintroduced a poll tax, as they seem to be planning to do.

Philip Hammond: There is no reason to suppose that the costs of collecting council tax would change as a result of a change of Government. But the hon. Gentleman is right: of course costs have fallen in some areas. Those step changes have occurred in the past and have been absorbed into the baseline, like many additional costs incurred over the past seven years that I have not mentioned today. We are now talking about the current pressures on councilsnew duties under the Homelessness Act 2002, the burdens associated with the shambles of our asylum system, and the recurring investment costs necessary to meet the Government's e-government targets for local government.
	Time constrains me from straying into, and discussing in any depth, issues of fire service modernisation and the new burdens on the police. Both represent partially unfunded central Government burdens, and will become a charge on local council tax payers.
	Sadly there is no light at the end of this particular tunnel, or if there is it is coming from a train approaching from the opposite direction. Legislation, directives and regulations currently in the pipeline, both domestic and European, will add billions of pounds of additional costs to local government's baseline over the next few years. In a submission to the 2004 spending review, the LGA identified literally dozens of sources of additional cost pressures. They are too numerous for me to list them. As I mentioned earlier, if the Government succeeded in their ambition of establishing elected regional assemblies in any region, there would be the additional huge cost of local government reorganisation.
	Local government is buckling under the torrent of legislation, regulations, red tape and bureaucracy. For most authorities it is no longer about exercising community leadership, choice and local discretion. Budget pressures resulting from these burdens mean that central Government's agenda squeezes out local priorities, while council taxes spiral upwards and disillusion with the local democratic process multiplies.
	In theory the burdens of new legislation on local government are supposed to be met by the relevant central Government Department, and in fairness to the Minister I believe he has reiterated to his colleagues in Government that that is the rule. The practice, however, is very different. Departments faced with a charge on their existing budgets for additional costs to local government have consistently underestimated the impact of change.
	I have here a memo of a meeting between the Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services and the Food Safety Agency. TypicallyI am toldthe FSA's initial position was that the implementation of a dozen food safety directives would have a negligible or zero cost implication for local government. There is no realism about the cost of change to local government, and there is no effective system of post-implementation review of regulatory impact assessments.
	The end result of all these central Government burdens on local government will be soaring council taxes. Ministers can stand at the Dispatch Box and wring their hands, but, as one of my hon. Friends said earlier, the outcome is not an accident. This Labour Government have, until recently, made no attempt to conceal the fact that their policy of shifting grant to authorities in the north and the midlands would lead to higher council taxes in areas that Ministers considered could afford to pay. It is a deliberate shift of burdens on to local council tax payers. But the extent of central Government's underfunding of cost pressure and the scale of imposition of new responsibilities mean that it is not just the authorities that Ministers intended to target that have had to post massive council tax rises. The proportion of local government revenue spending funded from the council tax has risen from 20.5 per cent. in 199697 to 25.3 per cent. in 200405. That is a clear and unequivocal measure of the degree of underfunding of the burdens imposed on local authorities by central Government.
	Not surprisingly, the public has reacted to the soaring level of council tax. The talk is of capping, reviews and alternatives, but there were no demonstrators and no martyrs in court when the band D council tax was 689. It is not the tax that prompted the public backlash, but Labour's turning of council tax into another stealth taxincreasing it by the equivalent of 3 per cent. on income tax.
	Alongside the additional pressures next year, we have hanging over us like the sword of Damocles the 340 million extra provided this year, which the Government have said that they will not consolidate into the baseline for 200506. That is the equivalent of an 18.70 band D increase in council tax next yearmore than 1.5 per cent. before anyone has spent a single extra penny.
	To conclude, and as we approach the local elections, perhaps the worst aspect of all this is the undermining of the transparency and accountability of local government. It is the so-called environmental protection and cultural services blockit has no single Minister to defend it, but has many local discretionary services within itthat always takes the hit and absorbs the cuts in local services, as local priorities have to give way to the central Government's agenda.
	The council tax payer sees soaring bills, but at the same time experiences cuts in the services that are most important to him and his family. With the deluge of new responsibilities and burdens set to continue, with ring-fencing remaining a significant factor and with a capping regime in place, there is simply nothing that he can do about it, other than go to the ballot box on 10 June and send a clear and unequivocal message that local council tax payers have had enough of the torrent of burdens and bureaucracy that this meddling, interfering, bureaucratic Government are imposing on our local authorities.

Nick Raynsford: I beg to move, To leave out from House to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	'notes that the Government has increased grant to local authorities by 30 per cent. in real terms since 1997, in contrast to real terms grant cuts under the previous government; endorses the firm action taken by the Government to reduce council tax increases in 200405 to the lowest level for nine years; notes that Labour councils have the lowest average Council Tax increases at 4.7 per cent. and the lowest average level of Council Tax at 870; congratulates the Government on its commitment to enhancing the delivery of public services by local authorities and notes the evidence from the Comprehensive Performance Assessment of significant improvement in local authority performance; welcomes the extension of substantial freedoms and flexibilities to local authorities, including the prudential borrowing regime replacing the capital controls imposed by the previous government; notes with concern that all of these advances would be jeopardised by the policies of the official Opposition which would freeze expenditure on most local authority services; contrasts the Opposition's current rhetoric with its track record of centralisation when in government; rejects its opportunistic approach; and endorses the Government's commitment to high performing local authorities delivering effective local leadership and quality public services in the most cost-effective way.'.
	Last week, we had an Opposition day debate on local government finance initiated by the Liberal Democrats. It was not, I have to say, their finest hour. Indeed, the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) suggested less than half way through the proceedings that the House should adjourn because the Liberal Democrat case had been so comprehensively demolished.
	Today, it is the turn of the Conservative Opposition. Given their own lamentable record in government and their remarkable failure to develop any new policy proposals in this area, it might appear to the impartial observer to have been a rash decision to choose this subject for debate. Now that we have heard the case put by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), we know that it was. I do not blame the hon. Gentleman: he is an able and assiduous Member and has made the best he could of the very bad hand that he was dealt.
	Of course, that raises the question as to why the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge was asked to lead for the Opposition. Over the past few weeks, we have been entertained by various musings on local government from the hon. Members for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). They would appear to be in the lead for their party. Yet cometh the hour, and cometh neither the man nor the woman! It is perhaps not surprising, given their recent accident-prone outingsthe suggestions of a return to the poll tax only yesterday from the hon. Lady, and toe-curling, born-again localism from the hon. Gentleman.
	I particularly enjoyed the observation of the hon. Member for North Essex in a speech to the New Local Government Network last month when he said:
	Eighteen years of Conservative government not only failed to halt many aspects of centralisation, but unwittingly accelerated it.
	I love the use of the word unwittingly. It must feature in conversations with his own father, who was one of the most senior Ministers in that Government, responsible for many of their extreme centralising tendencies. Let us imagine the discussion between the hon. Gentleman and his father: Dad, what were you thinking about when you unwittingly abolished the Greater London Council?

Bernard Jenkin: I can tell the Minister what he was thinking. He was thinking about smashing the hard left in London, which we succeeded in doing, only for Ken Livingstone to be allowed back into the Labour party. Can the Minister explain that?

Nick Raynsford: I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that his father was taking centralist action to attack local authorities. There we have it. That is the natural tendency of the Tory party. Although they try to pretend that they have changed, we know that the reality is that the Conservatives are deep centralisers. It is hardly surprising, then, that neither the hon. Member for North Essex nor the hon. Member for Meriden chose to speak in this debate. Their party's record in government was one of cuts, centralisation and failure. Their attempt to present themselves today as the champion of local government is risible. Local government is not so easily fooled.
	Let us first look at the Conservatives' record. Their period in office was marked by year-on-year cuts in funding for local government. The figures speak for themselves. Throughout the 1980s, local authorities experienced continuing real-term reductions in grant, year on year. Then, after the chaos of the poll tax and the rationalisation of non-domestic rates, we saw a further period of real-term cuts in grant. Here are the figures: in 199596, minus 1.9 per cent.; in 199697, minus 0.1 per cent.; in 199798, when they set the grant rates before being ousted from office, minus 2 per cent. The Conservatives were cutting grants and telling local authorities that they expected them to keep council tax downwith threats of capping. That was the position when the Conservatives left office.

Philip Hammond: Will the Minister confirm that the average band D council tax increase under the last Conservative Government was just less than half the average band D council tax increase during the period of the Labour Government?

Nick Raynsford: I will confirm that during the 18 years of the Conservative Government there was a chaotic trend, first with huge increases in domestic rates, then abolition of those rates and the chaos and injustice of the poll tax, followed by a vast increase in VAT to 17.5 per cent. in order to cushion the council tax so that the figures that the hon. Gentleman has just quoted could be achieved. As a result of that decision, everyone's VAT bills were subject to a 2.5 per cent. increase. It is pretty rich of the hon. Gentleman to try to claim credit for low council tax figures at that time, when they were achieved at the price of large VAT increases.

Michael Jabez Foster: As someone involved in local government during the last two years of the Tory regime, I know that the problem was not just the cuts imposed from the central Government. In my own county, over the Tories' final two years, there was a 20 per cent. increase in the council tax along with massive cuts in teacher numbers, in education and across the board.

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend reminds us of what life was like in the mid-1990s when the Conservatives were in power. It was grim. We saw schools that were underfunded, social services that were desperate and local authorities that had to lay off staff. Local authorities were unable to deliver the sort of services that local people expected. That was the atmosphere at the time, but Conservative Members now try to pretend that it has all disappeared and been forgotten. People working in local government know the reality and they will go on reminding the Conservatives of their lamentable record in office.

Richard Younger-Ross: Does the Minister realise that there is a trend? I worked in local authorities in the early 1970s, when the Conservative Government were forcing cuts on local authorities and cuts in services. When my wife worked for local authorities in the early 1980s, the Tory party imposed further cuts in services. Is there a trend here?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Throughout its period of relatively recent historymy memory may not go back as far as the hon. Gentleman'sthe Conservative party has a consistent record of cutting grant to local authorities and, in parallel, telling them that if they do not keep the council tax down, they will be capped. I shall return to the issue of capping in a few moments because it provides an interesting insight into the shape of today's Tory party. Before I do, however, I want to say a little about what has happened since 1997.
	Since we came into office, local authorities have received real-terms increases in grant every year, adding up over the seven years of the Labour Government to a cumulative 30 per cent. real-terms increase. That is a wholly different scenario from when the Conservatives were in power. Conservative Members know that that is true and it shows up their own shabby record, so they try to divert attention by claiming that the grant increases have not matched the demands placed on local government.

Philip Hammond: The Minister has again referred to a 30 per cent. real-terms increase. Will he acknowledge that local government inflation pressures are significantly in excess of the retail prices index? He is right to refer to 30 per cent. in excess of RPI, but is not the real increase in local government inflation very much smaller?

Nick Raynsford: Local government cost pressures have reduced in certain areas but, in others, the pressures have increased. The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that there was a 7 per cent. real-terms cut in grants to local authorities during the final four years of the previous Conservative Government, when the pressures on local government were also increasing. In contrast, there has been a real-terms increase of 30 per cent. in grants over the past seven years. It is simply not credible for the Opposition to complain about pressure when the shadow Chancellor says that a Conservative Government would freeze grants to local authorities. He expects those authorities to cope with all the pressures to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but with no extra money. That is the real recipe for large council tax increases.
	I said that the Opposition want to divert attention from their record by saying that the grant increases have not matched the demands placed on local government. In one respectthat of rising public expectationsI am happy to plead guilty. The public now expect their local councils to do more, and to do it better. Gone are the days of hopeless resignation when the Conservative party was in power. Then, local authorities were starved of resources and the public despaired of any prospect of improvement.
	I am more than happy to celebrate the transformation over the past seven years to a climate in which people are no longer prepared to put up with excuses and poor performance. They can see the new schools, the extra teachers, the extra policemen on the beat and the real improvements in public services that this Government are determined to deliver. We make no apology for wanting local authorities to do better. Our comprehensive performance assessment has made a very important contribution to creating a climate in which continuous improvement is expected.

Philip Hammond: The Minister claims that there has been a continuous improvement. Will he accept the verdict of the local electorate on 10 June as a conclusive and authoritative judgment on whether the people of this country are happy with the Government's performance?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman began his speech by saying that he thought that the electorate should take decisions based on local rather than national issues. I agree with that and openly concede that the Conservative party generally did well in last year's elections. However, I note that it did not do well in areas where Conservative councils had a poor performance record. For example, the Labour party won control in Plymouth, and the Liberal Democrats did the same in Torbay. It is a healthy sign when the electorate identify failing councils and vote on local issues at local elections. We should not try to assume a national swing, with councillors standing or falling according not to their own merits and performance but to their party's performance nationally. The hon. Gentleman tried to make a localist case today, but anyone who cares about localism will agree that we ought to be working for a framework in which local elections reflect the performance of the local council. I hope that he will accept that.
	Of course, the cynics on the Opposition Benches, who have derided every initiative that this Government have taken to improve public services, take pleasure in criticising the comprehensive performance assessment. They ought to do their homework and have a quick surf on the internet to see what Conservative councils are saying. Last week, I had fun looking at internet and website references for the Liberal Democrats and I have had the same pleasure over the past few days in relation to Conservative councils.
	For example, in Bracknell Forest, council leader Paul Bettison has said:
	Independent reports show that we have strong systems backing up improving services. I am pleased with these results and determined that we will go on improving and providing high class services at the lowest possible cost.
	In West Sussex, council leader Harold Hall has said:
	Receiving the 'excellent' rating was an independent endorsement and a vote of confidence that confirms we are going in the right direction and have programmes in place to improve performance further.
	We are working with local authorities to improve the standards of service that they deliver to their residents but, as I made clear last week, we are also taking great care to ensure that new burdens imposed on local authorities are fully funded. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge may not have been following last week when I spelled out the working of the new burdens doctrine, so I shall do so again.
	All Government Departments are made aware that, when they introduce initiatives that will lead to an increase in costs for local authorities, they must provide the funding to cover those costs. Similar procedures apply in respect of private Members' Bills, many of which, although well intentioned, could also impose new costs. If funding to cover the new costs is not available, the new legislative provisions have to be amended to remove the burden.
	For example, in the current year, we have had detailed discussions about the introduction of the new licensing regime, a matter raised by the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has made it clear that fees will be set at levels that allow full cost recovery by local authorities.
	Local government representatives will be aware that we have added funding for initiatives such as local authorities' responsibilities under the Enterprise Act 2002, for which we have provided an extra 5 million above spending plans over the 2002 spending review period. We have also made available an extra 1.8 billion for the changes made to the funding of teachers' pensions.

Edward Davey: On the new burdens rules, the assessment of the costs of the services being transferred is crucial. Why will the Minister not give the task of estimating the costs to the Audit Commission? Why has he left the job under the control of his and other Departments?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman does not understand that the assessments are reached through discussion and negotiation between Government and the Local Government Association. He will have heard the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge talk about the list that the LGA has drawn up of the new pressures that it anticipates over the spending review period. That list has been submitted to the Government and I was present at a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury when the matter was discussed. We will continue to discuss the matter with the LGA and a further meeting has been arranged. Eventually, we will come to a conclusion about what level is appropriate.
	The House will understand that, in any negotiation, the parties involved are likely to overstate their cases, as they know that they may have to give a bit of ground later. That is a proper and appropriate way to proceed.

Edward Davey: I have in front of me the rules on the new burdens for local authorities. They state that, where possible, Departments should seek independent corroboration of the figures. If the Minister is prepared to go that far, why not a little further? Why does he not pass the matter over to the independent watchdog for local government financial matters? Why does he not give the job of deciding the estimates of the costs to be transferred to the Audit Commission? If he did, the House and local government would be very pleased.

Nick Raynsford: It is a slightly odd debate when I hear from the Conservative Opposition a wish virtually to eliminate, or at least drastically cut, the role of the Audit Commission, and from the Liberal Democrats a desire to give it more work. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge made a clear statement of his intention to scrap the comprehensive performance assessment, which is a major part of the Audit Commission's work. The two Opposition parties are pursuing directly opposite points of view. We believe that the Government's approach is appropriate and right. It is a serious way, with representatives of local government, to address and resolve the question of extra cost pressures.

Philip Hammond: Regulatory impact assessments have to be prepared, but local government representatives tell us that hindsight shows that those assessments have consistently understated the costs to local government. It would be a great help if some measure of independent involvement in those assessments could be established. For example, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 has cost local authorities 18 million a year more than the regulatory impact assessment compiled when the legislation went through the House suggested. That is the sort of problem that local government faces.

Nick Raynsford: I have two things to say in response to that. First, the hon. Gentleman now argues for additional regulatory work. Earlier, he said that the Opposition would tear up the regulatory burden, but now he wants more regulation. That is classic: the Opposition claim to be non-regulators, but when it suits them they are happy to say that they want more regulation. That is typical of the Conservative party's incoherent approach.
	Secondly, the hon. Gentleman will accept that, as with any analysis of this nature, some of the figures will turn out to be not entirely accurate. Some estimates are too low, others too high. That is part of the natural process in any negotiation of this sort. I assure the House that we take the new burdens doctrine very seriously and work to ensure that local authorities have sufficient resources to meet the additional obligations placed on them by Government or by private Members' Bills.

Chris Mole: I welcome the new burdens approach that my right hon. Friend described, and as a practitioner in local government in the 1990s, I contrast it with the introduction of legislation by the Opposition. For example, the child protection legislation required social services authorities to respond to orders of the court placing children in secure accommodation, but gave local authorities no control over the high individual weekly costs of that accommodation. Local authorities could not budget properly for those costs and the then Government made no provision.

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend was of course leader of a council and has practical experience of such matters, so he speaks with great authority[Interruption.] It was a worthwhile and sensible contribution and I should have thought that the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) would have wanted to listen to it. He is on a learning curve in respect of local government and he would learn a great deal by listening to my hon. Friend, who has great experience in such matters.
	My hon. Friend made a valid point, which was that when the Conservatives were in government, they used to impose new burdens on local authorities. He mentioned child protection, but I could add examples of legislation on housing, disability discrimination and health and safety. Legislation on all those issues imposed new burdens on local authorities up to 1997the difference was that, at the time, the Conservatives were cutting grants to local authorities. The Conservatives said to local authorities, Do more, and we will give you less. And if you increase your council tax by too much, we will cap you. It is sheer hypocrisy for them now to present themselves as the champions of localism.
	We are putting in place a framework to ensure that local authorities can improve services and are fully funding the new burdens that we are placing on them. We are also ensuring that local government has new powers and greater flexibility to act for the benefit of its areas. The Local Government Act 2003 provided a raft of substantial new freedoms that help authorities to deliver services in new and innovative ways, engage with their communities on local priorities and work more closely with local business. They also help authorities to improve value for money and drive down costs.
	The firstthe showpiece element of the 2003 Actis the new prudential borrowing regime, which puts local authorities in the driving seat in taking decisions about their borrowing. Opposition Members do not like to be reminded that the prudential regime replaces the strict centralist controls over local authority capital spending that their Government introduced in the 1980s, when the father of the hon. Member for North Essex was Secretary of State.
	Secondly, there are the new freedoms to charge and to trade, which will increase choice in the delivery of public services and, in the case of trading, generate additional income. Authorities are already benefiting from the retention of revenue from fixed penalty notices and they can retain the income from reducing discounts on second homes, an option which has been widely taken up by local authorities this year.
	While we are on the subject of charges, let me remind the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, who today poses as the champion of local authority discretion, of the very different line he took as recently as this February when we debated the Fire and Rescue Services Bill. He did not argue for discretion then. Indeed, he tabled amendments that would have specifically prevented fire and rescue authorities, many of which currently charge for certain services, from doing so; so much for the thin veneer of localist rhetoric. Behind the facade, there still lurks the old Tory centralising tendency.
	We have not forgotten about partnerships with business. The 2003 Act provided the enabling powers to set up business improvement districts, which allow local authorities to work with local business. The local authority business growth incentives scheme will allow authorities to retain part of the increases in their business rate revenue. That scheme will give councils a real incentive to work with business to encourage growth.

Chris Mole: My right hon. Friend mentioned the two schemes to assist business. Does he recall that only yesterday the CBI gave evidence to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning and Local Government Committee about how it welcomes those schemes as positive forces to improve the relationships between business and local government?

Nick Raynsford: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out the widespread support that those new initiatives receive from all interested parties. Those powers can make a real difference to the way authorities operate and the way that they can work with their partners. They also give councils the scope to provide more services and to engage with business to improve the local environment.
	The Government are also acting to cut bureaucracy and reduce unnecessary controls. So far, we have abolished 39 consent regimes and are currently proceeding to eliminate a further 54 such obligations, 22 of which are covered by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which has already received Royal Assent.

Bill Wiggin: If the Minister is really concerned about cutting bureaucracy, can he explain why he has capped Herefordshire council to the tune of 253,000, when the rebilling cost will be 100,000?

Nick Raynsford: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not asked Herefordshire council why it increased its council tax by an amount that the Government concluded was excessive. It is the subject of discussion. The authority has made representations and I shall consider them. After the purdah period associated with the local elections, I shall make our decisions clear. I shall address the issue of unreasonable council tax increases in a moment, and I hope that he will be interested in what I have to say.
	We are working with the Audit Commission to ensure that the inspection process is proportionate and targeted, and to cut back on unnecessary inspection burdens. Overall, the volume of inspections this year will fall, and high performers will benefit from dramatic reductions. For example, Hampshire has received only one voluntary inspection in 200304, compared with nine inspections over the previous two years. Similarly, with ring-fencing, we have unfenced a total of 750 million of grants this year, reducing the percentage of grants that are ring-fenced from more than 13 per cent. to around 11 per cent. We are on course to get it below 10 per cent. next year. We are committed to a framework that encourages and empowers local authorities to do more and to do it better, to give leadership to their communities and deliver high quality services. But we are also absolutely clear that authorities must deliver value for money, and keep the demands that they make on council tax payers as low as possible.
	As hon. Members know, after last year's unacceptably large council tax increases, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made it clear that we expected local councils to come in with much lower increases this year and that we would if necessary use our capping powers if authorities set excessive budgets. I am glad to say that the vast majority of local authorities heeded that warning and, led by Labour councils, have set much lower increases this year. The figures speak for themselves. Labour councils increased their council tax on average by 4.7 per cent., Conservative councils by 5.4 per cent. and Liberal Democrat councils by 6 per cent. That is clear evidence that Labour councils cost less as well as delivering better services for their communities.

Philip Hammond: The Minister's figures would not stand up to scrutiny by any schoolboy statistician. Does he recognise that, to give in to pressure from the Deputy Prime Minister, local authorities have had to sacrifice the priorities of local people? Local authorities have had to accommodate the priorities of central Government and the burdensome pressures from Whitehall.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. Local authorities that increased their council taxes by unreasonable amounts last year have this year recognised the reality that the public will not accept unreasonable large council tax increases and moderated their demands. That is good and I am surprised that he does not welcome the trend[Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Essex mentions capping. I do not know how he has the cheek to do so, given his party's stance. When the Conservatives were in government, they capped and capped and capped. We voted against universal, crude capping, which is what they used to do. Authorities were capped, year after year. We have taken a different approach: we reserved powers and we have used them selectively this year.
	The Conservatives have tried by selective use of statistics to hide from the harsh truth. They tried to claim that Labour councils benefited from more generous grant increases. That is not true. Labour councils received an average 5.9 per cent. increase, but Conservative councils received 6.1 per cent. They tried to pretend that the Government had rigged the grant system so that all the money went north. That is not true[Interruption.] Such comments have been made time and again[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman seems to want to ignore what he and his colleagues said last week

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have frequent conversational interjections from a sedentary position. If hon. Members wish to intervene, they should do so formally in the normal way.

Nick Raynsford: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	The grant increases for the three northern regions this year were 4.8 per cent. in the north-east, 5.2 per cent. in the north-west and 5 per cent. in Yorkshire and Humber. The grant increases in the four southern regions were 5.4 per cent. for London, 5.9 per cent. in the eastern region, 5.6 per cent. in the south-east and 5.5 per cent. in the south-west.
	That is more clear evidence that Tory propaganda is completely untrue.
	The Tories pretend that they are in favour of low council tax but they have sat on their hands when the Government have taken action to cap excessive council tax increases. This was the party that introduced capping in the 1980s. It was the party that capped, capped and capped again when local authorities were starved of resources and facing grant cuts.
	Now, despite the clear evidence that their Back Benchers want effective and tough action to be taken to stop unreasonable council tax increases, the Tory party is reluctant to say one way or the other where it stands on capping. No wonder Lord Tebbit is fed up. No wonder he has denounced it for its
	bland, centrist politically correct agenda.
	I much prefer the more robust line that another absent Tory Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), used to take. He said:
	residents have the right to be protected when their Council runs out of control and spends excessively.
	I agree. Sadly, he too has been airbrushed out of the picture by the Tory party.

Chris Ruane: I concur with my right hon. Friend that there is no need for the excessive increases. I refer him to a parliamentary question that I asked the Deputy Prime Minister, which asked
	what the total central funding for local government was in each of the last 25 years.[Official Report, 24 May 2004; Vol. 421, c. 1435W.]
	From 1991 to 1997, it was 42 billion, 43 billion, 42 billion, 43 billion, 42 billion and 42 billion. However, from 1998 onwards, it was 42 billion, 44 billion, 47 billion, 49 billion, 50 billion and 53 billiona 30 per cent. real-terms increase in funding from central Government to local government.

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a good point.

Caroline Spelman: In case the Minister does not knowhe would wish this to be said if it were one of his colleaguesmy hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) is in plaster following an accident. Perhaps all hon. Members would like to know that. It is important to set the record straight. Through no fault of his own, he cannot be here today.

Nick Raynsford: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for highlighting that and I send my best wishes for a speedy recovery to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar. As I say, I enjoy his robust approach and will welcome his return to hear a rather more robust line from the Conservative party than the mealy-mouthed approach that it has taken towards capping.
	The Opposition have no policy and no credibility. They have tried to forget their own lamentable record in office, and in the most opportunistic style, which is all too common in the regime of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), they have sought to reinvent themselves as the party of compassionate and caring localism.
	No one will be deceived. The party of the poll tax, of year-on-year cuts, of compulsory competitive tendering, of capital controls and of crude and universal capping, cannot miraculously transform itself by donning the sheep's clothing that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge has unconvincingly tried to wrap himself in today. Their motion is inaccurate, insincere and frankly incredible. The House should reject it.

Edward Davey: I take the opportunity to send our best wishes to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). I hope that the pickled hon. Member is not plastered for too long.
	The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) made a detailed speech, talking about the financial burdens that the Government have placed on local authorities. I agree with much of his analysis, but the Minister was right to say that the hon. Gentleman was suffering from amnesia. Whether that was deliberate or unwitting is difficult to tell, but the Tories' record on centralisation and burdening local government does not bear analysis. The Minister has done a good job in highlighting that record and how dreadful it was for all those involved in local government when the Tories were in power.
	It has been an embarrassing day or two for the Conservatives and their local government team. First, we had the report and interview in The Times about whether the poll tax would be part of their policy. That has now been clarified. It no longer is, although it was in black and white that it was going to be considered. In the Financial Times today, their former local government spokesman, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), suggests that the Conservatives should advocate relocalisation of business rates, so some thinking seems to be going on in the Conservative party, but quite where it is leading we do not know. At the moment we have a vacuum in Conservative policy on local government finance. We know what the Conservatives are against, and we know they can make negative attacks on the Government and on the Liberal Democrats, but we do not know what they are in favour of.
	When the Conservative leader, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), was asked by The Daily Telegraph what his position was on the council tax, he said that he was very worried. The journalist therefore asked what he was going to do and he said, I don't know. That was in April 2003. We hoped that he would have a few lessons, do a policy review or something like that. After all, he was the Minister in the Conservative Government who brought in the poll tax and helped to bring in the council tax, so he has some expertise on local government finance. We thought that the Tories would come up with some policy.

Paul Tyler: Perhaps my hon. Friend recalls that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was also responsible for bringing in water charges in their current form, which have added great misery to people in the south-west, who face huge rises not just in council tax this year, mostly in Conservative authorities, but in water charges.

Edward Davey: It is not surprising that the Conservatives do not talk about their record in local government, because it is appalling. Now they make excuses for not putting before the electorate before the local elections on 10 June policies on council tax and local government finance. They say that they are waiting for the report of the balance of funding review. That is a derogation of their duty. Before a democratic process, local electors need to know what the Conservatives' position is.

Philip Hammond: What is the position of the Government then?

Edward Davey: At the moment we do not know, do we? The hon. Gentleman is right, but I do not think that that excuses him. It shows that both the Conservatives and the Labour party are undermining the democratic process by not being honest with the people of Britain.
	We do have one bit of Conservative policy on local government finance. We heard the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequerit was debated earliersay that he wants to reduce spending on local government by 2.5 billion. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, in exchanges with the Minister, tried to clarify that it was about reducing bureaucracy and waste, but the Conservatives have not told us in detail where that money will be saved. They have not said that it will come from reducing spending on education, social services, the environment protective cultural services grant or anything like that. All the voters know is that there will be a 2.5 billion cut. Whether that will be achieved through savings, or whether the balance will be picked up by increasing council tax by 10 per cent., we do not know. The Conservatives are abusing the electorate by not coming clean on that.

Philip Hammond: For the record, as the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) has said that total non-NHS, non-schools departmental expenditure would be held constant for two years. He has said nothing specifically about the local government finance settlement. The hon. Gentleman is extrapolating.

Edward Davey: The point is that the Tories are not giving us much detail. We have to try to fill in the blanks. If the Tories are going to go into these elections and the next elections as the policy-light party, the voters will find them out.
	Despite the Conservatives' difficulty over all these issues and the huge black hole in their thinking, the motion is difficult to oppose because it is factually correct. For a start, council tax has gone up way above inflation since 1997. It has reached painful levels, as the Audit Commission report in December made crystal clear. Part of the reason was the extra pressure put on councils by the Government. The Minister's continual reluctance to admit that does not add to his case.
	The Tories' list of charges in that respect was fair. I want to add to it. They made one omission. We have had a debate about which councils, controlled by which parties, are setting the highest council tax, but I think that, if one is going to present a fair position, one should take the average over a number of years. Let us look at average council tax rises by councils run by different parties over the past six years, which I think is a fairly good run, to ensure that different years, when different councils were funded poorly by the Government and others were not funded poorly, are taken into account.
	According to that analysis, Independent-run councils had an average increase of 8.3 per cent. over the last six years, Lib Dems had an average of 6.9 per cent., Labour councils had an average of 6.8 per cent.not a lot of differencewhile Conservative councils were the highest, with an average annual council tax rise of 8.9 per cent. I am not surprised that that figure did not appear in the speech of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. Year on year, over the last six years, the Conservatives have been increasing council tax and I think they will pay for it.

Philip Hammond: rose

Edward Davey: Does the hon. Gentleman want to try to find an excuse?

Philip Hammond: Will the hon. Gentleman give us the same data series for band D council tax? He knows very well that the distribution of properties in local authorities controlled by different parties can distort those figures. What are the percentages in band D?

Edward Davey: I will give the hon. Gentleman an example of band D in one council over the last six years: Liverpool. Six years ago, the Liberal Democrats took control of Liverpool council. At that time, the band D council tax was the highest in the countrya legacy of the failed Labour administrationbut now it is down to 70th. That is the result of six years of Liberal Democrat policies: reducing council tax and improving services in the city. That is why the Government's independent watchdog has shown that the Liberal Democrats in Liverpool have massively improved services in the city and that is why the private sector is backing Liverpool Liberal Democrats by investing 2 billion in the city centre, working in close partnership with the council.

David Cameron: As the hon. Gentleman is so proud of the Liberal policy record, can he clear up this point? His colleague, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), was asked in an interview:
	Will regional assemblies have tax raising powerslike Scotlandand if so will it be a regional income tax?
	He replied: Yes and yes. Is that official Liberal policy?

Edward Davey: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to ask about the Liberal Democrat record rather than about our policy, but I am more than happy to answer him. In fact, I answered that point in a debate last Monday. The Government are proposing that regional assemblies should be funded by council tax precepts. We want to scrap council tax precepts; we do not think that they are a good idea. If voters support regional assemblies

Richard Younger-Ross: If!

Edward Davey: Indeed. If people vote for assemblies, and assemblies are formed and the grants passed down, they should have tax-raising powers. National expenditure and national taxation should be cut pound for pound. There would be no increase in overall taxation, which is what the Conservatives are trying to imply; the burden of national taxation would remain exactly the same.
	The motion is correct to list the unfunded cost pressures on councils and to argue that they are indicators of increased centralisation under Labour. I want to consider those pressures in four parts. First, there are extra burdens due to the extra controls in the grant system. In his speech, the Minister said that the Government had been reducing the ring-fencing of grants, but they still have a long way to go.
	Secondly, burdens are imposed by the number of plans that Whitehall demands from local authorities. I shall analyse what the Government are trying to do about that and show that they have failed to reduce the number of plans. The third set of burdens comes through inspection regimes. Again, the Government are trying to address that problem, but again they are failing. Finally, the Government promised to lift the burden of Conservative financial constraints on local government, but they are dragging their heels on that, too.
	Let us examine what the Government say about the significance of ring-fenced grants in relation to council tax in the freedoms and flexibility paper published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister last year. Paragraph 42, Revenue ring fencing, states:
	It limits their discretion to vary spending priorities to meet local needs and the absence of such flexibility contributes to pushing up council tax. Ring fencing also substantially increases bureaucracy for councils and in many cases the grants themselves are poorly focused on delivery.
	For once, the Government were actually admitting to failure.
	What is interesting, however, is that in 1997, even under the Conservatives, the amount of ring-fenced grant was only 4.5 per cent., but by 2002 it had almost tripled to 12.4 per cent.

Nick Raynsford: rose

Edward Davey: I am sure that the Minister wants to intervene to tell me that the trend is downward, but I shall tell him about the effects of passporting, about the redefinition of ring-fencing and about the fact that all the ills his freedoms and flexibilities paper describes are still with us in spades.

Nick Raynsford: Actually, I was not going to say that; I was going to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would accept that certain services, such as Supporting People, where very large transfers of funding affect very vulnerable people, need to be protected for a period of time to ensure that those services continue. Does he accept that there is a genuine case for ring-fencing in those circumstances, which was pointed out in the paper to which he referred? Although we are fully committed to reducing ring-fencing, does he accept that the Local Government Association agrees that for certain services, such as Supporting People, the ring fence is appropriate?

Edward Davey: I am not sure that all the money in grants for Supporting People needs to be ring-fenced and I shall list some other grants that certainly do not need to be ring-fenced. The Government have set themselves a target to reduce ring-fencing to less than 10 per cent., but that is still double the amount they inherited from the Conservativeshardly an ambitious target. They are reducing the number of ring-fenced grants; it was 45 in 200304 and is set to be 33 in 200506a reduction of 12. However, when we examine particular ring-fenced grants we wonder why on earth they remain ring-fenced.
	The standards fund will continue to be ring-fenced in 200506; 990 million ring-fenced and outside the flexibility of overall budget setting. A range of health service grants is ring-fenced, amounting to 300 million. About 10 police authority grants are ring-fenced. They are all separate and I cannot see why they need to be within that category; they could be included in the basic formula and the Government have not explained why that should not be so.

Philip Hammond: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is no point in the Government's removing ring fences only to replace them with so-called targeted grants that can be clawed back if they are not spent on the targeted areas?

Edward Davey: I completely agree. The Government have been redefining and have given themselves a new set of categories; they are trying to manipulate the amount going into ring-fenced grants by reclassifying them. The ring-fenced category still exists; everything in the grant is controlled and has to go to a certain service and the local authority has no discretion whatever. Then there is a new and interesting category that the Government call specific grants. That may be what the hon. Gentleman meant by targeted grants. There is a little flexibility but the money has to be spent on a certain service; it cannot go into the general pot. Finally there is the formula grant, where there is discretion.
	Redefining the grants does not make things better. In addition there is passporting, which covers so much council grantmore than 50 per cent. in some casesespecially in relation to education. The Minister has failed to explain the difference between a passported and a ring-fenced grant. The truth is that there is no difference. When one adds passported grants to ring-fenced grants, the amount that the Government control and are forcing local authorities to spend in a particular way has gone up massively. That is micromanagement to an absurd degree and gives the lie to the Government's claim that they are the localist party.
	The freedoms and flexibilities paper said that inspection regimes would be reduced and that there would be a far lighter touch. There would be a three-year inspection holiday for excellent authorities; for good authorities there would be a minimum
	of 25% reduction in inspection activity.
	Fair authorities would receive lighter-touch targeted inspection, while poor or weak authorities would receive targeted inspection. We have contacted authorities in the various categories and in many cases those aims have not been delivered. If the Minister disputes that, he only has to intervene from the Dispatch Box.
	We understand that some excellent authorities have not enjoyed the three-year inspection holiday that was promised in the freedoms and flexibilities papera point covered in the Local Government Chronicle last week. Good authorities have not seen the amount of inspection reduced by 25 per cent. Does the Minister want to deny that?

Nick Raynsford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. As he heard me say earlier, Hampshire had only one inspection last yeara voluntary onecompared with nine over the previous two years. I could give him many similar examples. He should understand that some excellent authorities are not excellent in education. We always made it clear that there would be a continued role for the inspection of authorities where education did not achieve the highest standard, because education is such an important service. On good authorities, our latest figures suggest that the volume of inspection is about 22 per cent. less than last year, so we are very, very near that 25 per cent. target.

Edward Davey: I can accept what the Minister says, but I will talk to the local authorities that have been contacting us. The odd example, such as Hampshire, may meet his criteria, but other authorities are still being over-inspected, despite the Government's promises. The Government need to go much further; they must adopt a much more strategic approach to minimising the impact of inspection.
	The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge told us what such an approach would mean for district councils. I was going to read the same page, but I will not detain the House by reading it again. All I will say is that he did not do the Local Government Association analysis justice because, at the end of the list that he read out, it said that it was looking forward to a comprehensive performance assessment peer review the following February and that there were more than 10 different inspections in six months. As the hon. Gentleman also said, a whole list of Acts of Parliament will affect councils and increase the regulatory burden, with a series of specific new burdens, such as the work force reform.
	I happily admit to the Minister that it is not that one is against some of those proposals. Some of them are very sensible, such as those on freedom of information. Of course the Liberal Democrats are in favour of that sort of approach, but we need, first, to ensure that there is a more co-ordinated approach if regulation is increased and, secondly, to give local authorities far more support than has been the case hitherto.
	I touched on the new burdens paper in an intervention, when I said that we would like the Audit Commissiona totally independent bodyto be responsible for assessing the costs of those new burdens. That paper, which was published last month, also concerns me because the Government will not make their proposals retrospective in any way. The Government have placed a lot of burdens on local authorities in the past seven years, and we have been analysing those burdens in today's debate. No proposal in that paper suggests that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and other Departments will reconsider and say, We gave you that cost. We didn't give you the resources. We are now going to put that right. If the Minister made such a commitment today, he would get support from both sides of the House and, particularly, from those in local government.

Chris Mole: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that, on the conclusion of such an analysis, the Liberal Democrat Treasury team would commit themselves to making such a pledge. Although I entirely understand the point that he makes, there is, of course, a financial burden of some significance to the national Exchequer in what he is saying.

Edward Davey: I would certainly support the Government if they were prepared to make that commitment.
	The new burden rules paper, which bears re-reading, is also interesting because it does not apply to all new burdens. Paragraph b says:
	the requirement does not apply to policies which apply the same rules to local authorities and to private sector bodies (for example a change in the rate of employers' national insurance contributions), unless these have a disproportionate effect on local government.
	Despite the way that the Government spin all the increases that they say they are providing to local authorities, it is very clear that they will not take into account those extra burdens, so we consider their rhetoric and say, You're not delivering on the things that you promised.
	I now wish to move from the inspection regimes and extra burdens to the plan requirements. The Government said in the freedoms and flexibilities paper that they would reduce the number of plans that they require of local authorities in all respectseducation, social services, housing, civil contingencies and so on. To be fair to the Government, they published a paper in July 2003, wrote to all chief executives and said that they would reduce the number of plans. The problem is that local authorities have had no update since July 2003, and there is huge uncertainty about whether the proposals consulted on last July will be implemented and, if so, when and how.
	Even if the Government were to tell local authorities today that they will press ahead with the reforms described in the July 2003 paper, some local authorities are probably engaged in drafting the plans and strategies and meeting the Government's bureaucratic demands, so money has been wasted already. Even if we read that paper and say that it represents a good attempt at deregulation, we are left with the impression that it is a bit of a numbers exercise.
	I should like to ask the Ministerperhaps his junior Minister can answer during his winding-up speechhow many of the plan requirements in the July 2003 paper will result in the abolition of documentary requirements. To any objective reader of that document, it looks as though many of those documents, plans, strategies and requirements are being merged. They are simply being subsumed into one large service plan, so that the amount of work, bureaucracy and cost imposed on local government is not being reduced. There is simply a numbers exercise to reduce the statutory requirement for plans.
	Moreover, the Government are now trying to make out in that paper that they are reducing the number of plans to 16, but that is still a huge number of plans for small authorities, such as district councils, to draft, and most of those plans must be submitted to central Government, so the Government are still looking at local authorities' every action.
	I shall finish by considering the Government's failure to produce financial freedoms for local authorities. In their 1997 and 2001 manifestos they promised greater reforms, but they have not delivered on all those promises. The Minister was right to say that they have delivered on the prudential capital framework. He knows that we supported and campaigned for that framework, and he continues to have our support. There are already signs in local government that that policy is beginning to tackle some of the investment backlog that the Tories bequeathed in things such as roads.
	The Government promised other things such as trading powersit is all in the Local Government Act 2003, which received its Royal Assent in September, yet the order has still not been considered in the House so that its provisions can be brought into effect. The Government also promised in their 1997 manifesto the relocalisation of business rates. They said that they had been campaigning and consulting on that before 1997, yet that pledge has still not been met. Perhaps that will be done in the balance of funding review, but that will be seven years after the Government's 1997 pledge.
	Even where the Government have introduced some of the financial freedoms that they promisedfor example, on the charging regimethey have very carefully restricted them. The Minister looks puzzled, but he will know that the Local Government Act 2003 restricts the charging regimes to just pure cost recovery. The Local Government Association, which is cross-party, says that that is far too restrictive.

Nick Raynsford: Surely the hon. Gentleman understands the difference between tradingwhere authorities have an opportunity to make a profit, but where they are required to operate in a company structure, on which consultation has taken place, which is why we have not yet introduced the orderand charging, where it is not appropriate, without protection, for authorities to be able to trade essentially against the private sector from a privileged position. That difference between charging and trading is well understood, and I should have thought that the Liberal Democrats supported it.

Edward Davey: The Local Government Association certainly argues against the removal of cost recovery. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the debates on those clauses of the Local Government Bill were truncated, partly because of a lot of time wasting by Conservative Members. I very much regret that, because we could have had some detailed arguments about the charging and trading regime. I wonder whether there will be a chance to return to that because there are concerns in local government that the charging and trading regime is not working as originally envisaged.
	The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge talked about a new set of cost pressures that have been placed on local government, particularly in respect of inflation. Local authorities provide labour-intensive services. Their wage bills are increasing by 4 or 5 per cent., partly because of national arrangements, and they have absolutely no control over that. It is incumbent on the Minister to ensure that local government gets a good deal in the forthcoming spending review, so that those cost pressures, which local authorities cannot control, are met under the grant agreement.
	The motion is good in so far as it goes. It is right to point out that the financial burdens have increased under this Government, and I find it bizarre that the Minister is not even prepared to admit that. In fact, a lot of his programmes are intended to try to row back, which suggests that there is some recognition in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister that the Government's programmes have been burdensome and part of the reason why council tax has increased.
	The motion fails, however, in one major respect: if we are to tackle some of the financial burdens, yes we must cut inspections, reduce the number of plans and remove the ring fences around many of the grants, but we must also deal with the fundamental, underlying issuefinancial autonomy for local authorities.
	As we debated last week, we believe that there is a clear casewhether in terms of accountability or the gearing effectfor local authorities to have much more control of their financial future. Until we get reform of local government finances, which should include local income tax and a relocalisation of the business rate, we will not be able to deal with that.
	I have a final question for the Minister. He spent a long time last week attacking the Liberal Democrats' local income tax proposals, but we know that the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy put forward a paper to the balance of funding review. The paper does not represent Liberal Democrats' policy; it represents CIPFA's view of the local income tax. Is the Minister prepared to consider that proposal and to consider local income tax in a different form from the one that we are proposing, and possibly in combination with the council tax? We need to know, and this is a good chance for him to clarify the situation. We look forward to hearing the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope), answer that question.

John Battle: I welcome this debate on local government. It is timely, as we are currently in the throes of local elections in our towns and cities. I am the first Back Bencher to speak, and as I served as a local councillor for years before I came to this place and have served as a Minister, I would like to move the debate beyond a discussion of council tax settlements in previous years. Wider issues are at stake.
	I wish to add a little historical perspective and to push the boundaries forward by offering a vision of local governance that deepens our democracy for the future. It is the vision of increased participation, decision making and provision at a local level which I firmly believe the Government are working towards.
	I came into local politics in the mid-1970s, and it is easily forgotten that between 1955 and 1975 local authority expenditure tripled, in constant prices. That led to an assumption of dependency on the centre, with funds based on centre-driven growth year after year. Such a mental template became engrained and it has defined the central Government-local government relationship over the past half century.
	Today, local authority spending consists of only a quarter of all public expenditure in our neighbourhoods and localities. There has been a fiscal shift and, with it, a change in responsibilities, including the key responsibility of working to eliminate poverty in our neighbourhoods. We must not lose sight of that. The shift in responsibilities means that we must also look at a range of providers that are not limited to local government.
	I remind the amnesiacs in the Conservative party of what happened in the early 1980s. My right hon. Friend the Minister referred to the Conservative Government's chaotic approach, and so it was. We did not even have the benefit of annual budgeting, and our budgets were cut by two thirds. I chaired a housing committee at the time and I remember the effect of stopping and aborting programmes. I remember receiving a budget, setting it out, putting out tenders for re-roofing and then being told by the then right hon. Member for Henley, who was Secretary of State for the Environment at the time, Oh no. Hold up your budgets, and call the tenders back in. We are going to cut the budget halfway through the year. We did what he said, but he then found a bit more money and told us that we had to spend it by 31 December. That meant that the tenders for re-roofing went out in September and the houses had to be re-roofed when the work was least likely to be donein the winter. I am sure that the then Secretary of State was not stupid; it was done deliberately to discredit local government by making it look inefficient and unable to deliver. We had less than annual budgeting, but we have come way long from that, not least in respect of the comprehensive spending reviews introduced by this Government. They are most welcome.
	Some of us have long memories of the Conservative Government's contempt for local authorities in principle, and strangulation of their budgets in practice. However, I want to put that row to one side and to suggest more positively that we can look forward to breaking out of the mid-20th century debate about the relations and tensions between central and local government. We are still a little fixated on the axis of that debate, and we need to focus on the project of deepening local democracy, which involves participation and engagement at a local level in our neighbourhoods and communities. We must ask how that relates to the changing roles of local governance, the national state and, increasingly, to the international agencies that make local contributions.
	In societies all over the world, local government's role is being rethought. What does it mean in the context of changing welfare states and increased globalisation in our economies? In recent decades, local government's institutions have been changing their structure, systems of operation, political practice and models of service. I recall the establishment of the local ombudsman in 1974. That moved things on. In 1976, the Layfield committee tackled local-central financing arrangements and dealt with the questions of fiscal tension as the centre gave more resources and asked whether local authorities could retain powers over decision making on priorities at a local level. As a member of Leeds city council, I submitted to the Widdicombe committee in 1986 evidence that addressed relations between committee structures and local authority service departments.
	Under this Government since 1997, we have seen the emphasis shift from providing services alone to taking on the challenges of community leadership and identifying and meeting the needs of local areas in partnership with central Government, with business, with voluntary organisations and, I hope and emphasise, with local peoplea dimension that we must intensify and improve. We need new efforts to encourage flexibility, and the new deal for communitiesto mention just one element introduced by the Governmentencouraged the introduction of the neighbourhood partnerships, which we can build on.
	In 2003, the Audit Commission, in its Comprehensive Performance AssessmentScores and analysis for single tier and county councils, gave most local authorities in Britain positive marks for their overall management and political competence at leadership levels. Best value and better service delivery were making a positive impact, myriads of new partnerships had been established and new local authority executive structures had been adopted with remarkable speed and efficiency. Most had also improved their participation and consultation strategies, but I would suggest that they had started to introduce them.
	I want to point out, however, that most of that reform has been in terms of top-down, nationally developed changes. Although initiatives and resources coming down from abovefrom the centreare welcome and necessary, they need to be embraced by initiatives at ground-floor level if we are to reach those whom we sometimes refer to as hard-to-reach people and tackle the poverty in inner-city, urban and some rural neighbourhoods. If not, the developing acronymic list of hundreds of separate budgetary initiatives will appear not as welcoming regenerating rain on communities, but as hailstones that hammer down and quickly disappear, leaving people feeling damaged without having understood their impact.
	Local government core functions have changed. I suggest that there is a much richer, new complexity of inter-governmental networks and what I would describe as a multi-level of governance, which includes, for example, community safety provision, police and fire authorities, crime and disorder partnerships and drug action teams. On education and skills, we have not just the new learning and skills councils, but colleges of further education, universities and employment action zones, as well as schools and early-years provision. Health and well-being is a new dimension that has emerged in the past 10 years. The primary care trusts that the Government introduced and the Sure Start partnerships are all part of a new multi-mix of integrated local service provision.
	Budgets are being blended in new ways, but communities must embrace them so that they understand them and can make them work to serve everyone in the localities. I am trying to suggest that the traditional model of local government, with its key task of delivering services as part of the welfare stateit used to be roads, schools and housesfunded from local rates and a central Government grant, has fundamentally shifted.
	We have now to consider a new model of networked community governance in our neighbourhoods. That is an invitation to people to participate in building those networks, working with them and delivering services. We need to focus on the needs of local communities, to search out local issues, points of conflict and contact, to develop and work towards local solutions, to reconcile conflicts at a local level and to work across boundaries for more integrated practical solutions. In other words, we need to try to improve the quality of life in our neighbourhoods using a range of services, some of which were not encapsulated in previous central and local government models. That networked community governance is no less susceptible to the conflicts that have always occurred over what we might call goal definition or determining local priorities.
	I support the Government amendment to the motion, as far as it goes, but I might have added another line, saying We will continue to look at new and innovative methods of engaging and ensuring local participation. Let me give a practical example. Leeds is now widely acknowledged as one of Britain's most successful cities, but it is not without its inner-city challenges of poverty and social exclusion, including the neighbourhood in which I live. In my constituency, we called people together under the banner of the West Fest conference, inviting them to participate in a consultation process. We are now taking that conference to every corner of every neighbourhood. Its purpose is to engage people, listen and spell out the new complexities of partnerships in multi-level local provision. That includes traditional local government services, but also health services. It involves the police, voluntary groups that provide services for elderly and young people in the neighbourhood, and arts groups and others who provide light entertainment and stimulate imagination in our communities. It involves sports groups who add to the work of the officially provided services by engaging people in activities.
	We are experimenting with the development of local people's neighbourhood plans. We say what we need and what we can do together. We must be aware of the complexity of the available services and consider how to knit everything together to meet the needs of the locality, as articulated by the people themselves. Our local councillors in Kirkstall, for example, are involved in a groundbreaking plan for the Kirkstall valley. It will ensure that in the heart of Leedsfrom the city centre, through the inner city and out towards the ring roadwe will have a sustainable, clean, green wedge of parkland, available for local people as a leisure resource. It will cut a swathe through the inner-city neighbourhoods. We are engaging local communities in the design and development of that plan.
	The council is restructuring and re-engaging with the people under the new, dynamic leadership of Councillor Keith Wakefield, who seems to spend most of his time on the streets. I do not mean that pejoratively; I mean that he is out and about, listening to people and engaging with them. I emphasise the word listening, because he is finding out what people's needs are. He is using new methods to try to include people in the delivery of services, because they should be part of that process.
	Out of the West Fest we developed workshops to take into the neighbourhoods on subjects such as local community economic development strategies and social enterprise projects. On the latter point, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) mentioned that the Government had promised things that they had not quite yet delivered. I do not concur, because a Bill on community enterprise is about to come to the House from the other place. I am looking forward to that, because it will enable councils to develop community enterprises so that people can open boarded-up shops and set up businesses in them, employing local people and providing goods and services to the neighbourhood.
	We are considering providing local public transport, using minibuses in the neighbourhoods that seem to be beyond the larger bus services. We should use the resources that we have, building them into community services. We can take the process further. We are looking at displacing loan sharks by setting up credit union networks. We are developing local schools as centres where community resources are available, day and night and at weekends.
	Local participation models are subtler, more difficult and more complex than others, and we need to develop more ways of coming together, replacing complaining with planning and working together to make decisions for the benefit of our neighbourhoods. They are not easy, quick-fix models. They completely invert the top-down approach of the past, which went from central Government to local government to neighbourhood. We should not be setting at odds community participation, through local meetings, and representational democracy in the form of elected councillors. They should be working together. We need them both, so we must find new ways to integrate the representative democracy model with the participative democracy model, to deepen our understanding and practice of democracy.
	Let me add another idea to the notion of new localism, to push it a step further. I ask the Government whether there is any space for experimenting with new ways of delivering services, new forms of accountability and the development of a more enabling local state as well as a more enabling national state. The top-down approach must be related to the bottom-up initiatives. For example, let us look closely at local service delivery. Why should the meals on wheels service for a person in my street come from seven miles away, through all the traffic, to arrive there, perhaps, the day before so that someone has to reheat it? Why cannot meals on wheels for the stuck-at-home elderly come from the same street, from someone who lives in the neighbourhood, trained and paid to deliver that service? What I am saying is: let us decentralise meals on wheels.
	Why do we not look at service delivery for care of the elderly, care of the sick and child care, including after-school clubs, in local neighbourhoods? Why do we not think intensely micro and see what we can do to meet the needs of the unemployed, such as training, in communities, particularly in inner-city neighbourhoods? Where in the neighbourhood can we look, in future, for resources to meet local needs and to redevelop and rebuild the basic community? We need more new thinking about the practice of local politics and service delivery, but we also need new systems of local governance to develop that.
	I shall end with two quotations. The first is from what some Members may think is a strange source: a work called The Great Disruption, by The End of History man, Francis Fukuyama. He was talking about engaging people in groups. We know what it is like when we go to a meeting with people who have never been to a meeting before: they shout for what they want, walk out and go back home. We cannot organise community participation on that basis; there must be some vague rules of the game. Fukuyama said:
	If members of the group come to expect that others will behave reliably and honestly, then they will come to trust one another. Trust is like a lubricant that makes the running of any group or organisation more efficient  . . . If people can be counted on to keep commitments, honour norms of reciprocity and avoid opportunistic behaviour, then groups will form more readily, and those that do form will be able to achieve common purposes more efficiently.
	That blends the demands for efficiency, best value and delivery, and at the same time sets out a template for the values that we need to solve collective problems in our neighbourhoods.
	I know that it is not the done thing in a speech in the House of Commons to recommend a bookit suggests that we might have been reading or misspending our time in the Library. However, in the words of Professor Gerry Stoker from Manchester university, in a seminal book called, Transforming Local Governance:
	Local government is there to influence the major social and economic dimensions of its locality even if it is not directly responsible for a particular service or policy issue.
	The community leadership role is especially important in ensuring
	co-ordinated and effective collective action to tackle the everyday issues that matter to people in their localities.
	I recommend Professor Gerry Stoker's book, but everyone in Parliament, whatever their political party, should be much more positive about developing and transforming local governance, which we should support, encourage and champion. I would also make a modest exhortation to the Government to do more to address the challenge of enabling more bottom-up participation and development, which could regenerate and reshape our communities in future and ensure that they are inclusive places that we enjoy living in.

Nicholas Winterton: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), whose contribution was thoughtful and constructive. His own experience of local government came through very clearly indeed in his proposals. He told the House that he joined local government in the early 1970s. I joined it in the mid-1960s, and would be more complimentary about it than he was. In those days, the relationship between local and central Government was much closer, more constructive and less party political.
	I liked the fact that the hon. Gentleman's speech made very little reference to party politics. He made one or two asides about the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, but most of his speech was about achieving local government that met the needs and expectations of the people whom it serves. I therefore congratulate him on his thoughtful and constructive speech.
	I am sorry that the Minister for Local and Regional Government has left the Chamber. [Interruption.] I am well aware of the reason why he lefthe is, I accept, a busy man. However, my contribution to this debate will also form the basis of a strong case that I shall put to him in a meeting on the allocation of resources to Macclesfield borough council that he has granted my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) and myself. If he reads my speech in Hansard or if it is reported accurately to him by the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope), he will learn the essence of our case.
	Interestinglyand some hon. Members may find this surprisingI oppose my council on the issue of the large-scale voluntary transfer of housing. Local government should give meaningful tasks to elected councillors. In Macclesfield, the council has been forced to transfer its housing stock. The gross revenue from rents in the borough is 14 million a year, but the council has to hand back to the Government 8.5 million in negative housing subsidy. The borough has also been disadvantaged by the Local Government Act 2003, under which capital receipts that debt-free authoritiesMacclesfield is such an authorityare allowed to keep are reduced from 100 per cent. over three years to approximately 30 per cent. As a result, my council does not anticipate having sufficient resources left to maintain to the highest standard the council housing that it owns and administers. It will not be able to improve and refurbish its housing stock to the standard that council tenants expect, so it has been forced to consider a transfer. The Government have accepted its application to transfer, which now depends on whether the council tenants agree with it or not.
	I have sought to present the facts to the House, as there should be another way of dealing with the matter. It is wrong that my authority, which is debt free, should have to pass much of its rent revenue to the Government. Financial assistance to maintain, refurbish and improve housing through the use of capital receipts is being cut by the 2003 Act, which reduces the capital receipts that councils can retain from 100 per cent. to 30 per cent, so I hope that the Under-Secretary and the Minister can look at that. It is odd that a Conservative Member of Parliament should be supported by a Labour councillor who stood as my opponent at the last general election, other Labour councillors and a large number of council tenants, who are traditionally considered Labour supporters. The current arrangement is unfair, and the Government should find a way to allow Macclesfield to retain sufficient resources to maintain its council housing stock to an appropriate standard. Incidentally, the decent housing standard set by the Government is far below the standard set by Macclesfield council for the standard and quality of municipal accommodation in the borough. The Government are well aware of that, because I went to see the Minister for Housing and Planning, who kindly said that Macclesfield has a good reputation concerning the standard to which it maintains council property.
	Turning to the revenue support grant, the Under-Secretary will know that fundamental changes were introduced to the grant formula in the 200304 settlement, following substantial consultation with local authorities. That meaningful and lengthy consultation identified the fact that local authorities throughout the country require stability in the formula so that they can produce a robust medium-term financial strategy and can accurately predict the level of external support required. The new formula was introduced for the financial year 200304, and, I emphasise, we were told that it would be fixed for three years to allow for proper forward planning. It included an element of funding for staying in business and had floors and ceilings to dampen the effect of any major changes to individual authority settlements.
	The floor was set at 3 per cent.that is, no authority would receive less than 3 per cent. increase. The ceiling at that time was set at 12.5 per cent., so no authority would receive more than 12.5 per cent. There were, as we all know from our experience, winners and losers as a result of the new formula, but all authorities would receive a minimum increase of 3 per cent. on the adjusted base. However, significant changes were introduced in the 200405 settlement. The provisional settlement was announced in November 2003 and an initial examination of the figures revealed a significant reduction in Macclesfield's allocation, from 7.226 million in 200304 to 6.422 million in 200405.
	It then became clear that there had been some important changes to the formula, in that rent allowances and council tax benefits would be 100 per cent. funded by direct subsidy, and the national park grantpart of my authority's territory is within the Peak national parkwould be paid directly to the national park authority. The floor was initially set at 2.2 per cent.below the rate of inflationand the ceiling was set at 2.8 per cent., lower than the floor for the previous year, 200304. Macclesfield's settlement was at the floor, giving an increase on a like-for-like basis of 137,000 or, in cash terms, just 18,000, equal to 0.25 per cent.
	A further announcement, I am pleased to say, was made in December 2003, increasing the floor to 3 per cent. That resulted in a like-for-like increase of a further 50,000, raising the 137,000 to 187,000 or, in cash terms, 68,000, equal to just 0.9 per cent.less than 1 per cent. For Macclesfield, the result of that poor and unfair settlement is that an increase in expenditure of 6.5 per cent. had to be funded from an 8.4 per cent. increase in the council tax. Savings in the region of 500,000 had been identified by the council from efficiency savings and by redirecting funding from lower priority service areas. The 6.5 per cent. increase in expenditure includes the nationally agreed pay settlement of 3 per cent. and substantial investment to meet the national agenda for recycling and e-government set by the Government. I hope the Minister can see the unfairness faced by Macclesfield borough council.
	The external settlement does not even cover the cost of delivering the national agenda. Having regard to the gearing effect, we have little option in Macclesfield but to raise the required revenue through the council tax. My council and the Conservative group that controls it apologise to the residents of the area for having to increase council tax by a greater percentage than they would have wished, but in order to continue to provide the services to the standard that people expect and to meet the additional burdens placed upon local government by central Government, they had no alternative.
	To make matters even worse, the Minister for Local and Regional Government, who has had to leave, announced that he would use his capping powers if council tax increases were excessive, and that capping may be applied even toI use his wordsexcellent and good authorities. Clearly, the problem facing some authorities is accepted by the Government. I only hope they will look into these unfairnesses and see whether anything can be done to rectify them.
	In summary, the overall situation is that the very limited increase in the revenue support grant for Macclesfield borough council does not in any wayI emphasise thatcover the additional cost of maintaining the services currently provided, and at the same time allocate additional resources to deliver what people believe is rightthe national agenda set by the Government. With a cash terms increase in the external settlement of only 0.9 per cent. and an increase in expenditure of 6.5 per cent., we are, in the Macclesfield borough, forced to raise the additional revenue from council tax.
	I have sought to present my case factually. I have not sought to score party political points. Every statistic that I have quoted is not selectively chosen by me. It is the reality of the financial situation facing the Macclesfield borough council. Debates such as this are useful for Members of Parliament to advance constituency cases. I am only sorry that some of my colleagues have not chosen this debate to put forward a case. Another colleague plans to speak and will certainly get in. It is the duty of a Government to consider properly and fairly and to respond accordingly to any unfairnesses that are drawn to their attention by constituency Members of Parliament.

Bill Wiggin: The Minister's comments in his closing remarks, when he said that he was against universal capping, will sound hollow to my constituents, who have had their council tax capped, their police authority grant capped and their fire authority grant capped. Let me make it crystal clear that I do not want to see council tax rises. I loathe the increased financial burdens that the Government have stealthily piled on to council tax payers. However, the steps that the Government have taken to allow councils to reduce the financial burden are derisory and ineffective.
	The Government have capped Herefordshire council by 253,000. That is a sick joke, as it will make virtually no difference to anybody. It cuts just 7p a week off band D council tax, yet it leaves Herefordshire council with even more of a struggle to comply with the increased layers of bureaucracy that the Government have imposed, without receiving adequate Government funding. Herefordshire council is not generously funded against need. It is the most sparsely populated unitary authority in England in which to deliver services so, for example, the cost to the council of the school transport bill is much higheralmost 6 million. Any increase in fuel costs will have a significant impact on the cost in the future.
	The council is 36th out of 46 unitary authorities in terms of the level of grant received per head of population through the formula spending share. It is 140 below the average throughout all unitary authorities. The grant from the Government is woefully inadequate. The Government have already removed 5.2 million from the budgets of the former Hereford and Worcester county council and Herefordshire district council, at the point of reorganisation in 1998. The annual repayments of reorganisation costs for Herefordshire council totalled 13 million. It is being repaid on an annual basis, amounting to 1.9 million on this year's council tax.
	The county lost 1.8 million extra in the formula spending share because of the Government's delay in implementing population data changes following the 2001 census. Herefordshire council has clearly been heavily disadvantaged by the Government's funding. The formula spending share does not come close to adequately reflecting the cost of delivering the increasing demands and financial burdens placed on local authorities by the Government, such as recycling targets, the transfer of licensing responsibility, library standards, benefit regulations and national care home standards, to name but a few.
	I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) mentioned the implementation of electronic government as well.
	The Government's own changes to local authority finance last year meant that the council had to increase council tax by 17.5 per cent. to achieve the FSS level of fundingan increase in the burden on the council tax payer from 32 per cent. to 37 per cent. of total expenditure. However, the council has not compensated for Government underfunding by levying much higher levels of council tax. At 959.53, its band D council tax is below the national average for unitary councils. Despite the disadvantages that this Government have imposed on Herefordshire, the council is committed to reducing the levels of council tax over future years, but demands from this Government, who do not care about the constant increases for the individual council tax payer, make that commitment extremely difficult to fulfil.
	The council cannot be seen as a profligate authority. The Audit Commission's judgment gave the council the maximum overall score for the use of resources, and its pattern of spend has not moved significantly by comparison with those of other authorities since it was established in 1998. According to the comprehensive performance assessment, the authority is a good authority in terms both of corporate assessment and its service assessment. [Interruption.] Does the Minister wish to intervene? Apparently not.
	In the field of education, the council can demonstrate good performance in the outcome for pupils attending its schools. It has consistently maintained the spend on education at FSS level and has passported the required increases to its schools, despite facing the financial burden of the highest cost per pupil for school transport of any education authorityan issue that is, of course, linked to the rural nature of the county. However, despite the fact that there are four upper or single tier authorities that have higher levels of council tax than Herefordshire, but have avoided capping, the Government have decided to cut 253,000 from Herefordshire's calculated maximum budget requirements.
	The proposed revision of 0.25 million equates to a reduction in band D council tax of 3.80 a year, but the estimated rebilling costs, which I mentioned to the Minister earlier, are more than 100,000, which generates an extra cost of 1.25 per annum at band D. The Government's decision to cut the budget is no more than a pathetic party political move ahead of the 10 June elections.
	Sadly, the picture for central Government costs and funding is no better for Hereford and Worcester fire authority and the West Mercia police authority, which have both been neglected by Labour Government funding. They have both been capped and forced to cut front-line services because of the increased demand on local authorities. Hereford and Worcester is the only fire authority to be capped in 200405, by 2 million, but the cost to the authority of rebilling council tax payers is approximately 0.5 million, and the estimated cost of associated expenses is another 100,000. All together, that amounts to a 2.6 million reduction of the amount being invested in fire services.
	The Government do not fund Hereford and Worcester fire authority fairly, allocating a grant worth only 14.72 per person, compared with the average allocation of 19.50 per person for all other combined fire authorities. Hereford and Worcester fire authority protects 5.3 per cent. of the area covered by all combined fire authorities, but it receives only 2.5 per cent. of the total Government-allocated grant. Under the same financial pressure that it faces from increasing local government bureaucracy imposed by this Labour Government, the authority will now have to struggle even harder to deliver the services on which the local communities depend, which in turn threatens to undermine public confidence in the fire service.
	The fire authority has expressed deep concern about the impact of that reduction on its ability to deliver an effective service to the communities. Instead of cutting the amount that the local service must spend on wasteful layers of bureaucracy, the Government are forcing the fire authority to cut the money that it can spend and invest in community safety and well-being.
	That will result in a cut in front-line services. No funds will be targeted at investing in a modern fire and rescue service aimed at promoting a much greater sense of safety, security and community well-being. Furthermore, the cuts will result in a loss of 195 jobs in the fire authority, with the loss of 39 per cent. of the posts supporting front-line work, 27 per cent. of the whole-time firefighters and 13 per cent. of retained firefighters. Bringing about, in a period of weeks, a reduction of more than 20 per cent. in the size of the brigade is bound to damage the safe and efficient provision of a fire and rescue service.
	Despite being in the top half of forces by size and population, West Mercia police authority was excluded from the additional 340 million of Government grant funding for English local authorities that was announced on 11 December 2003. The support that West Mercia receives from central Government is the fourth lowest amount of grant per head of all shire police forces, while it is also the fourth most economical force in terms of cost per head and would need to spend an additional 10.6 million to equal the average of the 31 English shire forces. Nevertheless, the authority has been capped by 517,000. The force has no choice but to bridge the funding gap with council tax increases, because this Government have not provided nearly sufficient funding to accommodate the gross financial burdens that are incessantly imposed on local authorities.
	All Herefordshire's local authorities have been inadequately funded by the Government, and they have been capped to score party political points. The underfunding, along with the increased financial burdens placed on local authorities by central Government, has forced the authorities to turn to another source of fundingthe council tax payer. That has led to a diminished front-line service.
	I deplore the way in which this Government have increased the burden of council tax on my constituents. They have not only increased financial burdens on local authorities, but have not provided nearly sufficient funding to pay for layer upon layer of bureaucracy. Consequently, there has been a cut in front-line services, which is a great shame.

David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give examples of the layer upon layer of bureaucracy that he suggests exists in terms of permanent posts, locations, costs and so on?

Bill Wiggin: I am delighted to give the hon. Gentleman examples. I mentioned the extra cost to the education department resulting from sparsity of population; I think that it is an extra 6 million. We also have library standards, recycling targets, transfer of licensing responsibilities, benefit regulations, national care home standards and the implementation of electronic government, to name but a few of the examples that I have. I hope that that answers his question.

David Taylor: I am not sure that it does. To people in this Chamber and elsewhere, bureaucracy is an activity that exists for its own sake, and not because it is raising standards, providing new facilities or driving up quality. Such activities are not necessarily bureaucracy. Is that not merely a vacuous, hand-me-down phrase that is used when people want to have a go at either Governments or local authorities?

Bill Wiggin: Whether the definition of bureaucracy suits the hon. Gentleman or the Government is not the issue. What we are seeing is a council, fire authority and police authority that are performing way better than the average, but are being cut and capped.
	As I see it, the problem is that the Government have a fundamental belief that they should be targeting percentage increases instead of real financial increases. That results in a mismatch in constituencies such as mine. We can call it bureaucracy or haggle over the definition, but the fundamental problem that I and my constituents facenone of us wants to pay a penny more council tax than we have tois that in areas such as the one that I represent, local performance and the funding that the Government provide do not match up. As I said, the police authority would have to spend an extra 10 million to reach even the average level among the shire-type forces with which it would be compared. At one stage, I hoped that I would have to pay a lower council tax rate, as I live in my constituency. Unfortunately, however, the nature of the capping and the cuts that will have to be made means that they will be extremely damaging and that they will not deliver the financial saving that I had once hoped for.
	I am deeply disappointed that the Government have taken this line with Herefordshire, West Mercia and the Hereford and Worcester fire authority. I urge the Minister to think very carefully about what he is going to do in terms of the safety and protection of my constituents, and I hope that he will revisit that decision.

Richard Younger-Ross: I declare an interest in that my wife, who used to work for Devon county council, has been seconded to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and I understand that I should put that on the record. [Interruption.] I have not asked her whether she enjoys the work, but she has been in post for three weeks.
	I am glad that the Minister for Local and Regional Government has returned to the Front Bench. After I intervened during his opening remarks, he said that he could not remember as far back as me, which should worry both him and us. I checked in Dod's, and the Minister is eight years older than me, so I hope that his memory is not becoming shorter, although that might explain his comments about Labour policy.
	The Minister keeps repeating the phrase Groundhog Day in debate. He last used it in a debate on local government finance, in which he stated that the Tories were returning to an issue that the Liberal Democrats had raised 10 days previously. However, we have become used to the Tories repeating our remarks from 10 years agothey catch up in the end.
	In that debate, the Minister referred to the excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), in which my hon. Friend made a clear case for local income tax, but he went on to say that Liberal Democrats
	are no better than snake oil salesmen peddling quack remedies.[Official Report, 17 May 2004; Vol. 421, c. 759.]
	What is his problem with snake oil salesmen? What did a snake oil salesman do to him in the past that makes him dislike them so? What remedy did he purchase that did not workwe have only to look to see what it might have been? He should think of the snakes that the snake oil salesmen must kill.
	I am glad to see extra Conservative Members in the Chamber for their Opposition day. [Hon. Members: Where are the Liberals?] It is their Opposition day, not ours. The debate is welcome, because we can revisit the issues, pressure the Government to provide answers that they did not give last week and test the Conservative party on its lack of policies on this subject.
	The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) has a selective memory for council tax rates, and hon. Members have showered figures like confetti today. I did not originally intend to speak, so I have not gone to my local authority to obtain a wealth of figures with which to regale the House on the evil of the Government's settlement in Devon or Teignbridge.
	The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge did not answer my question about the average figure for council tax rises over six years. It is all well and good to pick one figure from last year and conclude that the Conservatives did quite well, but I am more interested in the overall figure covering a number of years. The Conservative party's track record over six years is not very good. The average increase in council tax in Conservative-run authorities is 8.9 per cent. per annum, which is greater than that under the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats, the nationalists and the independents.

Bill Wiggin: Will the hon. Gentleman address the important issue for my constituents, which is that their local authority has been capped? Until last year, the Liberal Democrats ran Herefordshire council, where council tax increased by 14.3 per cent. Despite that rise, the Liberal Democrats also managed completely to deplete the reserves, and a great deal of the funding that we have levied from council tax payers has been used to repay that depletion. The hon. Gentleman should not take his eye off the ball, and I hope that he bears in mind some of the terrible things that his party has done to councils.

Richard Younger-Ross: Cheap points scoring turns people off politics, which is one of the great tragedies of these debates. [Laughter.] Any hon. Member can stand up and criticise an authority run by another party by saying, In such and such a case, that council hugely increased council tax.
	The response to the point made by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) is to examine Torbay, which the Liberal Democrats currently run and which is being cappedTorbay has a problem because the Tories used to run it. One can always counter such arguments, but it does not take us forward, and the overall trends are far more significant.

Hugo Swire: The hon. Gentleman was generous enough to inform the House about his connection, through his wife, with Devon county council, which the Liberal Democrats ran until the last county council elections. The Liberal Democrats completely depleted the county's resources, for which we are now paying. It is all very well to say that that is a cheap political point; it is also a factual point, as was that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin).

Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) mentions the depletion of resources, but what did the Conservative party do in Shepway? It not only emptied the cupboard but took out the shelves as well.
	The hon. Member for East Devon and I have worked together on issues relating to Devon county council, which is currently run by not one party, but an amalgamation of four parties. The Devon example shows that parties can work together on funding and come up with a common case on why Government figures are wrong and on why the Minister must listen. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that Conservatives in Devon have worked with the Liberal Democrats, the Labour party and independents to come up with a common position. Cheap points scoring does not occur in Devon county council because the parties understand that they must work with each other.

Hugo Swire: That is the Liberal Democrat trick of pretending that nothing is political and that they are nicer than the mainstream parties. It is entirely correct that different parties currently work together in Devon; my point is that when the Liberal Democrats worked alone, they depleted the council's resources, which is why council tax had to go up so much last year.

Richard Younger-Ross: Last year, the Conservative leader of Devon county council, Margaret Channon, recommended an 18.2 per cent. increase. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Devon protests too muchhe attended the same briefings as me, and I understood that he supported his county council. The Liberal Democrats, the Labour party and independents supported the rise, which was fair because of the bad grant settlement.
	Last year, the hon. Member for East Devon said that the increase in Devon was the Government's fault because of the grant settlement, but the Conservative party also says that the Government have been taking money from the south to give to the north. The Conservative party cannot have it both ways, because it is one thing or the other. [Interruption.] Last year's grant settlement in Devon was a scandal.
	The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) made some pertinent points about what has happened in his local authority. I listened to him carefully and, although I do not know the details, he appears to have a strong case that Macclesfield has had a raw deal.
	I hope that the Minister listened to what he said, but I have to say that when we pleaded the case for Devon last year, our words fell on deaf ears. Perhaps he has snake oil in them. The pensioners' protest started as a protest against East Devon council, which is run by the Conservatives and which imposed a sharp rise of 18.2 per cent. The greatest burden on local authorities is having to administer the council tax systema goliath of a machine that is not very effective at raising money.
	The poor funding for Devon last year resulted partly from the basis on which grants are giventhat is, house value. I had thought that the hon. Member for East Devon accepted thatperhaps a selective memory is contagious in this Chamber. The problem in Devon is that although we have high property values, we have low incomes. It is a gross mistake to make assumptions about what people can afford on the basis of the value of their property. In effect, that suggests that a person has to move home to be able to afford their council tax. That is to be resisted, and it is one of the reasons why the Liberal Democrats have tried to put forward alternatives.

Bill Wiggin: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the local income tax that he propounds will have the same effect? In areas such as his constituency, which may have an elderly population with an income that is generally much lower than average, people will still be forced to move house to avoid the local income tax that the hon. Gentleman's party wants to introduce.

Richard Younger-Ross: That is not the case at all. The grant would be calculated and rebalanced on the basis of the new local income tax, which would resolve the problem. The local income tax would only replace the funding that is already raised by the council tax. One of the reasons why pensioners were protesting in Devon is that they found that 11 per cent. of their income was being paid in council tax. If Conservative and Labour Members are happy that 11 per cent. of the income of an elderly couple should go towards council tax, that is fine: let them sell it to the country. I would argue that one of the reasons why people are signing up to our Axe the Tax petition is that they feel that that proportion is too high.

Hugo Swire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Richard Younger-Ross: Let me finish the point; I have already given way several times. Although I was asked to extend my speech slightly, I might get some odd looks if I extended it too far.
	Under a local income tax, the people who paid ithon. Members should bear in mind that many pensioners would not have towould pay only about 3.85 per cent. of their income towards it. As a result, some 70 per cent. of the population would be better off.

Patrick McLoughlin: Everyone will gain.

Richard Younger-Ross: No, I am not saying that. About 30 per cent. of the population would lose out. It is a fair tax, not merely a cheaper tax. Hon. Members here would lose out, the Minister would lose out, and I would lose out, but the average person would not lose out.

Patrick McLoughlin: When we had this debate a few weeks ago, the Minister pointed out that the proposal would take at least two years to take through the legislative process and up to seven years to implement. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that?

Richard Younger-Ross: No, I do not. As usual, the Minister was trying to present the worst-case scenario. He was very selective when he read out the data from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy.

Hugo Swire: rose

Richard Younger-Ross: I have already given way more than enough, and I want to make some progress. I have two or three more points to make.
	One of the most important aspects of council tax or any local tax is its transparency. The grant system is not transparent. I once heard it said that the Minister was about the only person who understands the maths involved in what he says. [Interruption.] I am not sure whether he is shaking his head or nodding. The present system is immensely complex, and many people do not understand it; consequently, they do not trust it or see it as being fair. Even if it were fair, people would not judge it to be such. I would argue that it is unfair because of the burden that it places on people on low incomes, especially the elderly.

Chris Mole: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Richard Younger-Ross: For one last time, as I have not given way to a Labour Member.

Chris Mole: I wanted to make a point about the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, but it has completely escaped me, so I shall come back to it later.

Richard Younger-Ross: I said earlier that memory loss is contagiousthe hon. Gentleman demonstrates that it is extremely contagious and has spread to the other side of the Chamber.
	Another concern that people have about local government is the ability of central Government to interfere. That is not a new phenomenon. I used to work in the architects' department of a local authorityElmbridge in Esher. I lived in Weybridge and went to work in Esher. The local authority was inefficient and there were many problems. The Government of the time were forcing through reductions in funding that led not to improvements, but cuts, in services. During the 1980s, when my wife was allowed to be involved in politics, we ran campaigns together against those cuts.
	In the 1990ssadly, under the Labour Government for some of the timethere have been cuts in services in some areas because the funding formulae have not worked out. The Minister is looking at me quizzically. I shall give the example that I gave when I was a newly elected Member. The 15 local authorities in the south-west made a joint statement to the Minister saying that the funding for social services was inadequateparticularly for child care, which meant that they were having to transfer resources from elderly care to child care to cover their child protection work. That led to the underfunding of care home and elderly care services in the south-west.

Nick Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that although there are undoubtedly real pressures on social servicesno one denies thatthe Government have made provision in this current spending review period for 6 per cent. real-terms growth in social services spending? That very large financial commitment is far different from what applied when the Conservative party was in government.

Richard Younger-Ross: I will give the Minister five out of 10 for that. I accept that there has been some funding, although at the time that I am describing the director of social services estimated that local authorities were underfunded by 8 billion, and the Government have come close to that figure. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates that a further 1 billion would be required to maintain care home services.
	As far as I am aware, that 1 billion has not been found. Consequently, there is still pressure on the care homes sector. The Minister nods in agreement with that.
	Centralising tendencies continue to exist. I served on the Committee that considered the Fire and Rescue Services Bill where we made it clear that we believed that the Government displayed centralising tendencies on that. We therefore disagree with the statement that there are no centralising tendencies.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) made a point about a subject that we often forget when we make our calculations and consider the costs to elderly people, our taxpayers and local people in our communitieswater charges. They used to be part of the rates but they were taken out of the rates and badly privatised by the Conservatives. The equalisation grants that existed were not reintroduced. Consequently, the south-west pays some of the highest water tax bills in the country, and even higher water tax bills are expected. Overall, that means that we face council tax rises and water charges that are above inflation. That is unacceptable.

Hugo Swire: This afternoon's debate has been interesting. I was tempted to agree with the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) who said that we should look forwards, not backwards. He did not convey that message to Labour Front Benchers. It was extraordinary to hear the Minister visiting the perceived sins of the father on the son, my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). Perhaps it is a sign of the Government's desperation as we approach the local elections that he has to hit out not at Opposition Front Benchers but at their parents. That is a little below the belt.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) drew attention to the fact that not as many of our colleagues as there might be are participating in the debate. The reason is simple: they are all out campaigning throughout the country. They are saying that people should bear in mind what has happened in the past and compare the previous situation with the current position. They will spread the message from York to St. Ives and places further north, west, east and south that the Audit Commission's first report in 2002 graded 27 per cent. of Conservative councils excellent. Only 12 per cent. of Labour authorities made the grade and, alas, only 11 per cent. of Liberal Democrat-run authorities were in the same category. Perhaps that is not surprising.
	To show that the results were no flash in the plan, the second comprehensive performance assessment, which the Audit Commission announced on 18 December 2003, published updated results for the 150 single-tier and county councils that the first report covered, and a familiar pattern emerged. Conservative-run councils had the highest overall service scores, averaging 3.3 out of 4, compared with 2.9 for Labour councils and, perhaps again unsurprisingly, 3 for Liberal Democrat councils. The Audit Commission found that Conservative councils were more likely to be ranked as excellent and least likely to be ranked as weak or poor. Today, my hon. Friends are relaying those facts with confidence and conviction on the doorstep.

Nick Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Hugo Swire: I should love to give way but I am running short of time. [Hon. Members: Oh!] I shall deliver a little more of my speech and then I should be delighted to give way to the Minister as long as he does not attack my late father for something that he might or might not have done 20 years ago.
	This afternoon's debate is about the added burdens that central Government have placed on local government. What better place to start than the comprehensive performance assessment burden? The Local Government Information Unit, not the Opposition, has calculated the figures. It estimates that the annual cost of external inspections of local government is approximately 600 million. That figure does not include the indirect costs of inspection such as compliance, council staff time and avoidance or displacement effects, which amount to probably another 400 million.
	I want to talk specifically about the genuine reasons behind the council tax rises in Devon. I shall not go over old ground and the reason for finding the resources so severely depleted by the Liberal Democrats, who had run the county badly for so long. The Audit Commission recently published, Council Tax Increases 2003/04 Why Were They So High? Doubtless, it is compelling reading for those with insomnia. It found some interesting answers that I shall examine in more detail later. It states:
	Analysis by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy shows that the total amount that was provided in the local government finance settlement for education was sufficient to meet increased education costs at an aggregate level, with a real 'uncommitted' increase in spending of 225 million.
	CIPFA also pointed out that that was equivalent to less than 1 per cent. of local government spending on education. Perhaps the Minister is thinking, So far, so good. However, the combined effects of the passporting requirement, designed to ensure that all councils increased spending in line with Government requirements, and local choice to spend more than the passported amount, led to an increase in spending in aggregate of 200 million more than the Government had allowed for.
	Several factors led to greater pressure to increase spending in 200304 than in 200203. Employers' national insurance contributions increased by 1 per cent.; employers' contributions to the teachers pension fund increased by 5 per cent., and the pay award for local government staff was approximately 0.5 per cent. above the previous year's amount. Together, those factors contributed to more than half the total increase in local government budgeted spending in 200304.
	Authorities face a combination of pressures: national and local cost increases, increased demand for services and Government requirements. There is no doubt that one of the major factors behind the increase in council tax has been, as we have heard time and again this afternoon, the steady transfer of responsibility to councils, often without the funding, for matters such as care of the elderly and road maintenance.
	In 199596, central Government contributed 65 per cent. of net costs to East Devon district council. In 200304, they contributed only 49 per cent. That reduction occurred because costs continually increase as new responsibilities are placed on district councils such as East Devon without the provision of additional funding. Even the Government's finance watchdog, the Audit Commission, which investigated this year's council tax rises, stated:
	There are a number of external pressures on councils to increase spending, and therefore, council taxes. These include:
	Pressure from central Government to spend more to meet Government priorities.
	Devon gets one of the lowest grants in the country. It receives a staggering 182 less per person than the national averagemore than 20 per cent. less per head than the national average and more than 28 per cent. less than the north-east. If Devon received the average grant per head of population, it would mean an instant cut of 120 in the average band D council tax bill or an extra 128 million to spend on care services, roads, public transport and schools.
	Even compared with our neighbour, Cornwall, Devon receives 67 less grant per person.
	The Audit Commission report on council tax commented:
	We found a clear association between the size of grant increase a council received and their increase in Council Tax.
	Despite the Minister's protestations to the contrary this afternoon, the Government have also changed their rules on sharing out grants this year, taking money that should have come to Devon and other southern counties and giving it to the midlands and the north. Devon county council lost more than 10 million at a stroke from budgets for care services, roads, libraries and recycling, with Whitehall's decision alone adding 5 per cent. to Devon people's council tax bills.
	As from 1 April this year, my district council, East Devon, lost a source of income that previously financed most capital projects there. I refer of course to selling off council houses, which previously allowed it to build up capital reserves of, at one point, about 20 million. That in turn allowed it to keep its part of the council tax rises very small indeed, but that is to go and 75 per cent. of that money will go elsewhere, resulting in a capital loss to East Devon of 1.8 million. In addition to the capital loss, the council tells me that it had a 2 million shortage in day-to-day running costs and had to consider increasing charges for services that it provides and cutting other services and grants.
	I could go on, because I have so much to say, but I know my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) wants to begin his speech shortly. I conclude on this. We have heard much this afternoon about the balance of funding review and it is unrealistic of the Liberal Democrats to expect Her Majesty's loyal Opposition to give detailed alternatives to council tax at this stage. [Laughter.] Liberal Democrat Members laugh, but perhaps we are not as flexible as the Liberal Democrats.
	In the Brent, East by-election, Liberal Democrats went around handing out facsimile 100 vouchers saying that everybody who voted Liberal Democrat would get 100 back on their council tax. What has happened to that policy? Like so many other Liberal Democrat policies, it has evaporated into the ether of questionable electoral honesty. They are going to replace that with some other form of income tax, but we will shoot their fox by showing that that will cost the average council tax payer in the west country and elsewhere more than they have anticipated.
	There is no doubt that local people are suffering. The system is not working. More is being asked of local councils. Local councillors are being undermined by having to cut services and they have to increase council tax as well. Something needs to be done. Clearly the Government are not the right party to do it.

David Cameron: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), who spoke with his usual force and vigour. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests.
	This has been a worthwhile debate. We have been trying to solve the mystery of two facts, which are, on the face of it, contradictory. It is a fact that central Government support for local councils has increased, no doubt about it. The figure is 30 per cent. in real terms, as the Minister said if not once, then several times, but it is also a fact that council tax has increased rapidly, right across the country, by, on average, 70 per cent. for a typical band D property. Nobody was warned about that increase but everyone has paid it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), in a powerful speech, placed the responsibility on the Minister and his Government. He set out in great detail the extra burdens and costs placed by central Government on local government. He placed the Minister, as it were, in the library with the lead pipingresponsible for the mugging, if not the murder, of the council tax payers. He is absolutely right and made a wholly convincing case.
	The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming and the fact is that almost every council has had the same experience. The Minister is asking us to believe him and to disbelieve all of them, but I just do not think that we can. Let us consider the figures as they relate to some of his colleagues who are in the Cabinet. The tax increase for the average band D property in the Prime Minister's constituency between 1997 and 2004 is 65 per cent. In the Deputy Prime Minister's constituency, there has been a 60 per cent. increase, while in the Chancellor'sthis is one of the advantages of holding that postthere has been an increase of only 36 per cent. In the Home Secretary's constituency, the increase is 59 per cent.
	Let us consider all the different types of authority: shire districts, on average, up 90 per cent.; shire unitaries up 69 per cent.; metropolitan boroughs up 47 per cent.; inner-London boroughs up 53 per cent.; and outer-London boroughs, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) knows, up 83 per cent. My point is that the increases are across the boardevery single council has suffered in the same way.
	The Minister made an interesting speech that mainly delved into the pastso far back, indeed, that he talked about the role played by the father of my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). My hon. Friend came back with a good rejoinder, which was that his father had been the hammer of the Labour left. I always thought that the Minister had suffered in his time at the hands of the Labour leftI remember when he stood in other parts of Londonso I had thought that he would be grateful for the hard work of Lord Jenkin.
	The Minister then described a world in which the burdens on local councils were matched by extra revenues. I did not recognise that picture of a world that, as far as I can see, does not exist. Both the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton and my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge asked the Minister an interesting question: why should the Audit Commission not judge the extra cost of the burdens when the Government are considering how to fund local authorities? The answer was non-committal and I hope the Minister will return to the issue when he winds up. Those extra burdens are a real problem. Why not give the Audit Commission more responsibility for identifying them? If that had already been done, some of the arguments that we have had this afternoon would not have been necessary.
	The Minister said little about the general question of cost pressures on authorities. I would say that he should get out more to meet them, but obviously if we continue to engage in Opposition day debates such as this we constrain him to appear at the Dispatch Box.
	The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton began his speech with a reference to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). When he used the word plastered, it occurred to me that, in his party, that might be what could be described as a career-limiting joke, but we all enjoyed it. He made some good points. For example, he pointed out that, in 1997, ring-fencing accounted for only 4 per cent. of local government spending. The Minister says that he has been cutting it back, but he has not yet cut it back to that level. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton then made the valid point that while ring-fencing may be decreasing, as passporting and specific grants are rising, local government spending is still hugely constrained.
	Stealing a point that I had intended to make, the hon. Gentleman spoke in some detail about the long list of plans that authorities must produce and the fact that some are now being combined. The Government's legislation is showing a slight Blackadder tendency, in that every Bill must have a cunning plan at its heart. Homelessness, transport and all other legislation begins with the instruction You, the local authority, must draw up a plan. He made a powerful point in saying that, although the number of plans is being reduced, planning activitythe number of pages of workwill probably remain the same even following the combination.
	The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) told us about something called the WestfestI assume that it is the Leeds Westfest. I know that he is a keen folk guitarist; I do not know whether he joins in the Westfest, but I hope that he does. He said that the Government were pushing decision making down to local level, which I find hard to square with current experience. He also said that we should break out of the tensions between central and local government. I think that we would all agree with what he said about the importance of involving local people in genuine partnerships in all our constituencies. He spoke of the need for a new model for local government that is much less top-down and that involves participatory as well as representative democracy, and many of us would agree with that as well.
	The hon. Gentleman made the interesting suggestion that we should try to devolve services such as meals on wheels to much lower levels. I agree, but problems arise when there are strict national standards that are difficult to meet and a number of instructions coming from Whitehall. Those of us who represent rural constituencies find that our courthouses, police stations and care homes are under pressure because they cannot meet the national standards. People tell me that they would rather have a courthouse, albeit a small one, than no courthouse at all. We shall need to do more work on that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) gave us a preview of the case that he will put, along with my hon. Friend the. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), on the resources given to Macclesfield borough council. He spoke powerfully of the need to allow authorities to plan ahead and spoke at length about floors and ceilings. There are those of us, new to this game, who feel that we have already hit more floors than Frank Bruno and seen more ceilings than Zsa Zsa Gabor, but my hon. Friend was clearly on top of the issue. [Laughter.] An unfortunate phrase, perhaps. He made the point that council tax gearing made the tax increase in Macclesfield worse and I hope that the Minister will listen sympathetically when he goes to see him.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) referred to the capping of his authority. It has experienced a triple whammy: county, fire and police have all been capped. He said that a cap of 250,000 was proposed, but re-billing would involve huge costs. I hope that the Minister will deal with that in his speech.
	The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) told us that his wife now works for the Deputy Prime Minister and that he had not written a speech before coming here today. Putting the two points together, I suggest that his wife, who is clearly an expert in local government matters, should write his future speeches.
	We had something of a south-west fest between Devon Membersnorth, south, east and westand we heard the wonderful statement from the hon. Member for Teignbridge that we could not have it both ways. I thought that that was exactly what the Liberals had been doing for years, but I must have missed out on something. I agreed with him when he said that we needed transparency. All local government finance systems need transparency, but I question whether we would get it from a local income tax. In areas with a low-income base, there will be an even bigger grant system with even more equalisation. To that extent, it will not be a local tax and it will certainly not be transparent. The Liberals are indeed trying to have it both ways.
	As I said, my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon spoke with great power and told us all to go canvassing. He is my Whip, so I shall obey him. He spoke with great knowledge about Devon.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge went much further than providing circumstantial evidence. He provided proof that burdens have been added to local authorities and he mentioned threebureaucracy, costs and unfunded liabilities. I do not understand how the Minister can deny the existence of those burdens. He talked about comprehensive performance assessments and best value. I have to tell him that I visit councils up and down the country and they all say the same thing about the auditing and checking system, the paper work and associated costs. In fact, it is difficult to get them to talk about anything else. They find it largely unnecessary and very expensive. People sometimes ask about our policy: one thing that we could do straight away is to reduce the bureaucracy and burdens that local councils face. That is exactly what we will do.
	The Minister mentioned costs. There is a list of costs that local authorities have had to face in the last two years: national insurance, bed blocking, fuel duties, landfill taxes, the Criminal Records Bureau, extra pensions provision, the Labour pension tax and many more. The Audit Commission report of last year has already been quoted, but it bears quoting again. It states:
	National cost pressures taken together account for about 2.3 billion out of the total increase in councils' spending of 4.3 billion. In other words slightly more than half the total increase is due to national pay and price inflation, increased national insurance and general population growth.
	That is the report of an independent body: it is authoritative and beautifully makes the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge put to us.
	On the liabilities added to local councils, I accept that many of the objectives are worthwhile, but there are far too many of them, they have been initiated far too quickly and not enough funding has been given to meet them. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned legislation such as the Care Standards Act 2000 and the Licensing Act 2003, recycling targets, e-government targets and others.
	I greatly enjoyed one of the examples that my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge mentioned in his speech. He told us about the Local Government Association having to draw up its liveability plan. There must be times when people working in local authorities start losing the will to liveability and wonder when they are going to get on with the business of providing services, rather than providing information to the Minister.
	I want to deal with the nonsense that we have heard about average council tax. It is mentioned in the Government amendment to the motion and was mentioned by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. The Conservatives compare what people actually pay and examine the bands. We have used band D, but any band could be used. That is the fair and right way to assess it and it leads to the conclusion that Conservative councils cost people lessin fact, 57 less than Labour or Liberal councils. The idea of comparing average council taxes across the board is ludicrous, as anyone who has looked into the problem knows. It ends up being a comparison of how high house prices are in different parts of the country.
	Let me quote the Library on this point, as I am sure that we would all accept its utter and complete impartiality. In its standard note of 4 May 2004, it states:
	Using a council tax per dwelling figure for comparison is not suitable. This is because in different local authority areas the mix of dwellings by value may be significantly different from another. The average band D council tax figure accounts for this.
	In other words, the Library endorses our approach. Peter Kellner, more likely to be a friend of Labour than the Conservative party, wrote:
	The proper way to judge figures is to compare like with likesay, band D figures, council by council . . . On this issue, Labour is wrong and the Tories are right.

Nick Raynsford: rose

David Cameron: I will not give way, as I have only a minute left. As I was saying, it is nonsense to talk about average figures and much better to examine the band figures. Councils and council tax payers throughout the country have been let down by Labour. The 1997 Labour manifesto could not have been plainer when it stated:
	Local decision making should be less constrained by central government.
	How can Labour Members possibly claim to have fulfilled that pledge?
	We have had more and more spending ring-fenced and determined by Whitehall, and more and more spending has been passported throughagain, determined by Whitehall. Taxes, costs and charges have been increased by central Government. Extra bureaucracy has been piled on by central Government to such an extent that many councils now have several employees who just tick boxes and fill in forms insisted on by Whitehall. Extra liabilities are imposed by almost every Government Department.
	Taxpayers and local councils desperately need a Government who will cut bureaucracy, which we will. They desperately need a Government who will not add extra burdens to local government without providing resources. Every year, the Government say the same thingIt's a generous settlementbut, every year, the same result occurs: an increase in council tax at three times the rate of inflation. Most of all, we need an honest and open way of assessing the costs, pressures, liabilities and burdens about which hon. Members spoke today. In the meantime, all voters have every right to lay the blame for high council taxes at the door of No. 10 Downing street, and on 10 June, they will have the chance to send the Government a message by voting for Conservative councillors and I for one hope that they will do so in large numbers.

Phil Hope: I apologise for not being present at the start of the debate. I was chairing a meeting of the balance of funding review, which has been debatingperhaps in slightly different detailthe intricacies of the future of the balance of local government funding. Interestingly, Professor Gerry Stoker, who was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), has contributed to those discussions.
	We have had a short, yet helpfulat least from our point of viewdebate on local government finance. It is the second such debate in the past seven days. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) suggests that that is because of the local elections, but unfortunately local elections seem to bring out the worst in the official Opposition and the minor parties.
	Last week, the Liberal Democrats paraded their proposal for replacing the council tax with a local income tax. That would be an utter nightmare, and we comprehensively demolished the proposal last week. This week, the Tories have let slip their plans to reintroduce the poll tax.

Caroline Spelman: The Minister was not here for the start of the debate, so for the complete avoidance of doubt and his benefit, may I express categorically that we are not considering bringing back the poll tax?

Phil Hope: That was an interesting intervention. I am holding a copy of The Times dated 25 May, which has the headline, Tories seek answers in poll tax. It says:
	Elements of the widely hated poll tax may be revived by the Conservatives in their local government policy review in an effort to ease the council tax burdens on pensioners.
	It says that when the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) was asked whether
	that meant that some of the principles of the poll tax would be considered for inclusion in the plans, she said: 'We will look at that.'
	If there is to be a U-turn by the Conservatives today and another tomorrow, and if we see the usual muddle, confusion and complexity of Conservative party policy, I guess that the local electorate will be able to deal with that at the ballot box, as the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) invited them to do.

Patrick McLoughlin: The Minister talks about muddle and confusion. Does he recall the first time that the present Deputy Prime Minister came to the Dispatch Box to talk about local government finance? That was more than seven years ago, and he assured us that he would make local government finance easier to understand. Does the Minister believe that his right hon. Friend has succeeded?

Phil Hope: My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has increased local government finance by no less than 30 per cent. in real terms. However, enough of the muddle and confusion of the Conservative party, let us hear more about the Government's delivery to councils to fund local services.
	It is quite entertaining to watch the Conservatives and Liberals trying to trade insults with each other, but the fact is that the Opposition motion is dreadful. It does not contain a single positive word about the future of local services or local government. It is a wholly negative diatribewe have heard nothing more than that this afternoonwhich contains no acknowledgment of the tremendous work that local government does, serving local communities, or of the real improvements in performance. Local authority staff, managers and elected representatives of all parties work hard to secure better services for local people, but that was completely ignored by Conservative Members.
	For this Opposition day debate, a grand total of two Conservative Back-Bench speakers bothered to turn up. A few more have gathered towards the end to lend moral support, but this

Philip Hammond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to criticise Opposition Members for not turning up for the debate, when he did not turn up for the first part of it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman is concerned more about putting that on the record than with eliciting from me a ruling on a point of orderwhich that was not.

Phil Hope: Thank you for that ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Conservative motion is disappointing, but the Liberal Democrats tried to amend it by offering three slogans to be added at the end. That does not say much for Liberal Democrat policy. The party seems to have simply walked away from the problem.
	The Conservative motion is an entirely negative diatribe about local government, which does not acknowledge the achievements under this Government. The Liberal Democrats agree with it completely. I consider the sum total of Tory and Liberal Democrat attacks on local councils to be simply unacceptable.
	A political party must offer the electorate a narrative about where it has been in the past, where it is now and where it is going in the future. The story that best matches the Conservative narrative is rather unseasonal just now. It is A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickensbut in this version the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), stars as the Tories' very own Ebenezer Scrooge.
	Three ghosts haunt the land of local governmentthe ghosts of Conservative past, of Conservative present, and of Conservative future. The most familiar is the ghost of Conservative past. I will say more of the poll tax later, but it was an appalling debacle. It caused VAT to be raised to 17.5 per cent. It was a very unfair system, and placed a greater burden of taxation on people. It led to real-terms cuts in grants to local councils over a number of years, most notably a 7 per cent. real-terms reduction in local authority grants over the final four years of the previous Government.
	We must not forget, either, the impact that compulsory competitive tendering had on services. Crude and universal capping was introduced at that time, as were centralised controls on local council capital spending. I hesitate to mention certain measures introduced by the Tories in Westminster.
	Under the Conservatives, crime doubled and police numbers fell. This Government inherited a backlog in council house repairs that amounted to 18 billion. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) said today that he would make representations to the Government about improving council houses in his area, but perhaps he will explain why this Government inherited a backlog worth 18 million and council houses in such a poor state.
	Many hon. Members used to be councillors, committee chairs or leaders of local authorities in those dark Tory years. They remember all too well the dreadful impact on their communities of the centralised and harsh regime imposed by the then Conservative Government. That regime damaged many of our poorest communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West was chair of housing in Leeds council at the time, and he told the House about his experience of having to sort out the mess. We know the impact that the past had on local communities.
	Have the Opposition learned their lesson? The ghost of Conservative present suggests that they have not. Since 1997, the Conservatives have opposed all efforts at devolution. They opposed the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. They opposed devolution to London, and elected regional assemblies for the three northern English regions. They have opposed every Labour Budget, even though this Government have given a 30 per cent. real-terms increase in grants to local councils. They have voted against key areas of legislation to improve local servicesin respect of education, housing, planning, policing, transport and child carewhich right now are delivering better services for our communities.
	The ghost of Conservative present means that Tory councils are putting up council tax this year by more than Labour councils. On a band D average, Tory councils are raising council tax this year by 5.4 per cent. The truth is that Tory councils cost people more.
	The Conservatives have pressed the Government about the burdens being placed on local government, but it would help if hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench spoke to their colleagues on the Back Benches.
	The private Member's Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) would provide that all regulatory impact assessments conducted by the Government should be externally audited. Can anyone imagine a more unnecessary, bureaucratic, duplicatory, cumbersome burden on local government than that Bill? That is evidence of the reality of what the Conservatives want, and it is in direct contradiction of their Front Benchers.
	The Opposition may say that their job is to opposealthough they look rather foolish doing itso let us look at the Tory alternative, the ghost of Conservative future.

David Cameron: Given that the Minister did not turn up at the beginning of the debate, will he spend a little time answering the serious speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) and for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton)? I thought that that was what one was meant to do when winding up a debate. He should answer the points that they made.

Phil Hope: Unless I am much mistaken, this is an Opposition debate, led by the Conservatives on their proposals on local government finance. I apologise for misleading the House in last week's debate, because I said:
	The first thing is that the Conservatives will not repeat their poll tax disaster: for that, we can be thankful.[Official Report, 17 May 2004; Vol. 421, c. 784.]
	I was wrong, and I apologise to the House. The poll tax was not only wrong in practice and in principle but it was political suicide, and it is no wonder that the hon. Member for Meriden was on her feet within 30 seconds

Caroline Spelman: rose

Phil Hope: Here she is again.

Caroline Spelman: There is no excuse for the Minister's not having heard what I said. He does not even have the excuse that he was not here. I shall repeat again, in case he does not retain information very well, that there is categorically no question of us returning to a poll tax.

Phil Hope: I have been quoting Dickens, but I turn to Shakespeare:
	The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
	It was unedifying last week to see the Liberal Democrats trying to stuff back into the hat the 100 rabbit that they pulled out at the Brent, East by-election. Now the reverse is happening. The Tory poll tax rabbit that we thought had been firmly stuffed back into the hat has popped back up again. We may only be able to see its ears at present, but it is there. The electorate can see it, too.
	The poll tax is the least of the Conservatives' worries. Both Conservative contributors to the debatethe hon. Members for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) and for Macclesfieldmade heartfelt pleas for more money for their local councils. That is laudable and understandable. However, perhaps they should consult their Front Benchers about their policies. Not only will we get a new poll tax from the Tories, but they have promised a massive 2 billion cut in grants to local councils. On 16 February the shadow Chancellor revealed that in the first two years a Tory Government would freeze spending on local councils. That would inflict immense damage on local authority services. There would be cuts in neighbourhood warden schemes, cuts in CCTV schemes, cuts in school crossing patrols, cuts in refuse collections, cuts in meals on wheels, library staff and social workers. Streets would not be cleaned and crime would rise.
	To make matters worse, the Tories have promised to end resource equalisation. That is the mechanism that ensures that the Government give more support to those areas that have greatest need. Under the Conservatives we would have cuts for all, but bigger cuts for those in most need. It is a disgrace.
	I shall conclude by reminding the House of Labour's policies. We have increased grant to local councils by 30 per cent. in real terms. We have seen significant improvements in local authority performance, as shown by the comprehensive performance assessment. We have given new freedoms and flexibilities to local authorities. We have introduced an effective best value approach to improving local services and we have seen, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West said, tangible improvements to people's lives. That is a positive vision for local government, working as community leaders, delivering better services, working in partnership with othersincluding the business community, the voluntary sector and the Government

Patrick McLoughlin: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
	Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:
	The House divided: Ayes 189, Noes 326.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House notes that the Government has increased grant to local authorities by 30 per cent. in real terms since 1997, in contrast to real terms grant cuts under the previous government; endorses the firm action taken by the Government to reduce council tax increases in 200405 to the lowest level for nine years; notes that Labour councils have the lowest average Council Tax increases at 4.7 per cent. and the lowest average level of Council Tax at 870; congratulates the Government on its commitment to enhancing the delivery of public services by local authorities and notes the evidence from the Comprehensive Performance Assessment of significant improvement in local authority performance; welcomes the extension of substantial freedoms and flexibilities to local authorities, including the prudential borrowing regime replacing the capital controls imposed by the previous government; notes with concern that all of these advances would be jeopardised by the policies of the official Opposition which would freeze expenditure on most local authority services; contrasts the Opposition's current rhetoric with its track record of centralisation when in government; rejects its opportunistic approach; and endorses the Government's commitment to high performing local authorities delivering effective local leadership and quality public services in the most cost-effective way.

George Osborne: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you had an indication from Ministers in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister or, indeed, the Department for Constitutional Affairs that they are prepared to make a statement, before the House rises, on the emerging chaos in the distribution of postal ballots? That is particularly important in my region, where, as with other regions in the north of England, an all-postal ballot will take place for the European and local elections. I have received notice from my returning officer todayother returning officers in the north-west region replicate this viewthat, owing to problems with the printing of postal ballots, there may be a delay of up to a week in sending them out. Of course, that may have a catastrophic impact on the election. Have you had any indication that the Government will make such a statement?

Philip Hammond: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There has been huge concern in the House over the past few months about the Government's decision to proceed with this very large-scale postal voting pilot in the face of clear advice from the Electoral Commission that it was not safe to do so. It now appears that Conservative Members' worst fears have been realised and that the process is already descending into chaos. Is there anything that you can do, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to ensure that the responsible Ministers come to the House at the earliest possible opportunity to explain?

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that this is an opportunity to enter into a debate on this matter. The straightforward question to the Chair is whether I have received an approach that a statement be made. The answer to that is no; I have no notice of such a request. However, hon. Gentlemen have clearly raised what appears to be a serious matter, and I hope that those on the Government Front Bench have noted it and that we shall see the consequences of that.

Patrick McLoughlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House rises tomorrow. A few weeks ago, a Minister from the Dispatch Box gave the House an absolute assurance that everything was all in order for the postal ballot pilots to go ahead. I have heard in my constituency that the postal ballots have not gone out in Amber Valley because of the same problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) mentioned. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, should possibly communicate to Mr. Speaker that it is unacceptable for us not to have a statement on this issue at 7 o'clock tonight, so that the Government can inform us what is happening. The Prime Minister said today at the Dispatch Box that he was making urgent inquiries. If he was making urgent inquiries, the House should also be told what is going on in this shambles. The timetable is very tight.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That was essentially the same point of order. Nothing that the hon. Gentleman has said has detracted from the importance of the matter that has been raised, but it is not a matter that the Chair can rule on. The answer is that there has been no approach to the Chair as yet for a statement, but I am sure that those on the Government Front Bench will have noted what has been said and the record will be considered if a decision has to be made as to whether any further action is to be taken before the House rises. I cannot add to that.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have ruled on the point of order. I can rule on a fresh point of order, but I cannot take the same one.

Douglas Hogg: It is a fresh one.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the chance to dispel my scepticism.

Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are right to be sceptical, but you have done me a slight injustice. You will know that the Chair has the capacity to take an application for an emergency question. As you know, such an application is normally made in the morning before half-past nine, but there is a discretionary power to take an application for an emergency question later in the day. Do you have the discretion now to take such an application?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would never knowingly do an injustice to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. If he or any other Member wishes to pursue that line, it would be a matter of approaching the Speaker's Office in the normal way. It is not a matter on which I can rule from the Chair.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have made my ruling. Unless there is a new point of order, I do not think that there is anything more to be said.

John Redwood: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Given that those of us who debated this issue heard Ministers give categorical assurances from the Dispatch Box that all would be well, what opportunity is there for Ministers to correct the record of the House if they do not make a statement today?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is plainly not a fresh point of order that I can rule on. The matter has been aired and its importance is clearly understood. There are opportunities for action to be taken in response, but there is nothing further that I can say now. I do not believe I am justified in holding up further progress in the proceedings on the Order Paper.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt with this matter.

Peter Bottomley: On a new point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be original.

Peter Bottomley: I have seldom been accused of being anything else.
	There is a procedural point: it is open to the occupant of the Chair to suspend proceedings so that discussions can take place between the usual channels to find a way of getting a statement or a debate. I have already voted in the European elections; I have been treated more fairly than other people.
	Suspending the House for five or 10 minutes, so that the Government can make a statement about how they intend to proceed, might be the most useful way of resolving the problem. This is not just a party game played out here; it is a matter, in the east midlands, of people not being guaranteed a vote in a form that the Government dictated they should have it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but there is no case for suspending the sitting of the House, which has business before it. There is absolutely nothing to stop the most intense traffic between the usual channels, if that is seen as a way of progressing the matter.

Town Planning

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

John Hayes: I beg to move,
	That this House notes that development of the Green Belt continues unabated under this Government; believes the Government's Communities Plan will be unsustainable and will damage the quality of life of millions of people in this country by concreting over green fields and destroying rural communities; further notes that the Government's targets for brown field development have actually led to the loss of green spaces in suburban areas through infill development; and further believes that communities through their local authorities, not remote regional bodies, should be able to decide the priorities for local development.
	If I may beg your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall start by pointing out my tie. You will notice that it is the tie of the Deepings rugby club, and I am wearing it today to celebrate the success of its under-13 and under-14 teams, their coaches and the staff. I know that the whole House will want to celebrate that success with me.
	One reason for the motion is the fact that Conservative Members want to expose the truth. I shall tell some home truthstruths about the homes that should be built on brownfield sites as part of an urban renaissance and truths about the houses that are gobbling up the green belt. In exposing those truths, I shall reveal the Government's trickery, for which I do not blame the Minister for Housing and Planning. He is a good man. I blame the Deputy Prime Minister and the regime under which the Minister is unfortunate enough to work.

John Gummer: Did my hon. Friend notice that the Deputy Prime Minister had hardly come into office when he gave planning permission, later overturned, to build the largest estate on a greenfield and green-belt site almost in Britain's history, near Stevenage, a town that could do with redeveloping from within rather than spreading out across the countryside?

John Hayes: My right hon. Friend's typically apposite intervention gives me the opportunity to explode a myth. We may hear from Labour Membersmy right hon. Friend will be ready for this, as he always isclaims that the Conservatives are against all development. Of course the Conservatives are not against all development, but we believe that development should be in character and keeping with existing settlements. It should be of a scale that is appropriate to those settlements and in line with the wishes of local people.

Lindsay Hoyle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Members on this side of the Chamber cannot hear the hon. Gentleman because he keeps turning round. That is unfair because the debate should be for all to hear, not just those on one side of the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that that is something of which the hon. Gentleman would never be accused. It is a fair point. I have had to rule on a number of occasions because Members at the Dispatch Box, on both sides of the House, tend to move around and, generally speaking, it is helpful not to do so. The more that is addressed to the Chair, the more that will be heard and picked up by the microphones.

John Hayes: I will, as is appropriate, address my remarks through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I will face you as much of the time as possible, to our mutual benefit and enjoyment, I hope.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that that will add to the pleasure of my afternoon.

John Hayes: Not for the first time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have made my day.

Mark Prisk: Without wishing to test my hon. Friend's patience, may I return to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) about the decision on Stevenage, which matters to the people in the immediate area and also sets a dreadful precedent? Does he agree that it sets the tone for the Government, who are blind to the precedent that the Deputy Prime Minister has established? The destruction of the green belt will be remembered for many years when they are long gone.

John Hayes: My hon. Friend is right that that will be the Government's legacy. The whole House and the people of Stevenage and elsewhere will be disappointed that the Deputy Prime Minister is not in the Chamber today, because he stands indicted, as my hon. Friend suggested. He ought to come to the House and explain himself.

Andrew Mitchell: Further to the point that my hon. Friend made about the Deputy Prime Minister and the intervention of our right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), did he see the article in The Sunday Telegraph, which said that gardens
	have been officially classified as 'brownfield sites' ripe for redevelopment under planning guidance issued by John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister?
	Will he call on the Government to explain their position, and on the Minister who, as he said, is a good man, to disown it?

John Hayes: As if in anticipation of my hon. Friend's pithy and appropriate intervention, I had planned to deal with that precise matter. First, however, I wish to make some progress.
	The Government, as I said, have been engaged in trickery. Like all dud coins, their cons have two sides, but we have come to learn that their currency is spin, not substance. This particular con is about the green belt and brownfield development. Like all confidence tricksters, Ministers initially sounded plausible. Greenfield development has increased under this Government. I am pleased that the Minister does not dispute that, because in a parliamentary answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), who leads for us, he revealed that in 2000, 430 hectares of the green belt was developed, whereas in 1997, only 405 hectares were developed. There has therefore been a steady increase in the volume of green belt developed under the Government.
	When challenged on the subject, however, the Government are imprecise and evasive about details. That is not my analysis or judgmentI am not guilty of exaggeration or hyperbole, to both of which I am virtually immunebut the considered view of the House of Commons Library, which says:
	Government replies to PQs asking how much building has taken place on green belt land are normally evasive, mentioning the overall strategy . . . but not precisely answering the questions.
	I know that you will be struck by that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as, indeed will all hon. Members, who rely on parliamentary questions for good, accurate information. I have already said that the Minister is a good and straightforward man and, apart from anything else, he will be disappointed in himself.
	The Government's claims about the green belt have focused on overall strategy, but they have not given clear details. When challenged, they have claimed that they have increased the green belt in net terms, but their own figures show that the increase from 1997 to 2003 is based on a few limited areas. The increase in England was 24,800 hectares, almost all of which is in four areas. One would expect the pressure for development to be greatest in those areas, and one would expect to find them around London and in the south-east and the south of England. I had a close look at the words of Mr. Duncan Sandysthe Minister will be familiar with his words and, I suspect, reads them in bed every night.
	Mr. Duncan Sandys made it clear that the purpose of the green belt was to produce a tight strip of land around urban areas to prevent their encroachment into the surrounding countryside, that it should be a narrow strip of land and that it should be where development pressure was greatest. It was designed, he said, to prevent urban sprawl.
	So where were the areas that the Government added to the green belt? In Tyne and Wear, York, south-west Yorkshire and the north-west. The increases can be attributed to smaller areas within those regions: Blyth Valley, Tynedale, Ryedale, Bolsover, Doncaster, Blackburn and Vale Royal. In fact, 91 per cent.almost all of the increasecan be attributed to Blyth Valley, Tynedale, Bolsover and Blackburn.
	What are the areas like where the green belt has been increased? The Tynedale council website which I looked at describes the area as forestry dominated and truly remotenot the area most likely to suffer from urban sprawl, not an area under pressure for development, but an area that describes itself as truly remote.
	The Bolsover website describes the greenbelt area as situated on the north-eastern fringes of Derbyshire bordered by the Peak district and Robin Hood's Sherwood forestelegiac, picturesque; not a place, one imagines, where people are desperate to build vast numbers of new housesthe kind of desperation that is fuelling the development mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) in his early intervention, the kind of development so resisted by the people of Bedfordshire, Kent and Northamptonshire, who know what they face in relation to their communities and the supporting infrastructure.

Phyllis Starkey: rose

John Hayes: I shall happily give way to the hon. Lady, who is about to defend the attack upon our green fields.

Phyllis Starkey: I am immensely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I suggest that he does not try to guess what I intend to say. In the title to the debate and in his remarks so far, he has referred to urban sprawl. Would he be so kind as to explain what he means by urban sprawl? His discourse thus far suggests that he regards any extension of urban space to be ipso facto urban sprawl. Is he therefore suggesting that no towns or cities should increase in size at all, and that all development should occur within the existing boundary of an urban space?

John Hayes: The hon. Lady either did not hear what I said or did not listen to what I said. I said that sprawl, defined not by me, but by the architects of the green belt, was the urban area encroaching into the surrounding countryside. I went on to speak about development that was out of scale, out of character and outside the wishes of local people. I should have thought that was pretty plain. I wonder what the hon. Lady would say to her constituents and people close to them when they were faced with developments of the kind that I describedout of scale, out of keeping, out of character, against their wishes and without supporting infrastructure. I wonder whether she would defend her constituents or kowtow to the Government's position. That is a challenge for her, and I know she will meet it with her usual diligence.

Phyllis Starkey: rose

John Hayes: I shall briefly give way to the hon. Lady, as a matter of courtesy.

Phyllis Starkey: Naturally, I always listen to my constituents, but most of them live in houses built on greenfield land, as virtually the whole of Milton Keynes was, so they understand the balance between the need to protect the countryside and the need to provide affordable housing for young people.

John Hayes: I shall come to affordable housing, but the protection of the countryside requires more than fine words. We had fine words from the Prime Minister before 1997, when in an interview in Country Life he spoke about how much he revered and loved the countryside. It was a passing relationship that he soon got over.

Alan Whitehead: In pursuit of an attempt to find out where houses might be, were the hon. Gentleman's party ever to come to power, I note in the Order Paper the phrase, town cramming, which presumably the hon. Gentleman does not approve of, and the reference to
	the loss of green spaces in suburban areas through infill development,
	with which the hon. Gentleman does not agree either. So where would the houses actually be? Would they be anywhere at all?

John Hayes: There is a difference between town cramming and urban regeneration, but I shall deal with that point later, as I feel that I must make some progress. I know that the situation is uncomfortable for Labour Members. The hon. Gentleman is a very diligent Member of Parliament who takes his work seriously, and he takes a great interest in housing and speaks with great authority about it. I know that he is uncomfortable about some of these issues. If he were not a balanced man, he would not have that discomfort, but he is such a man and he will share my disquiet, as well as a degree of the embarrassment that I think the Minister feels deeply.

Kelvin Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman mentioned Bedfordshire, in which my constituency is situated. In Luton, we are running out of brownfield sites and using everything that we can, but there are 7,000 families in housing need. Is he telling my constituents that they will not be rehoused, because we are never going to build on greenfield sites outside our town?

John Hayes: No; indeed, I met a delegation of people from Bedfordshire a few weeks ago, and they argued very strongly that there was a need for development, but not of the nature or on the scale that the Government imagine, and not in the way in which the Government choose to do itoutside the consideration of local people, against their interests and with a minimal chance for them to have a say. I suspect that the people in Bedfordshire, rather like people in my constituency in Lincolnshire, want incremental development of a scale and character that are in keeping with what is already there. It is the speed, scale and nature of development, as well as its location, that are fundamental. Like the hon. Gentleman, I accept that we need to build houseswe always have done, and we always willbut where those houses are built, how local communities are involved, the infrastructure to support them and their relationship with the landscape are matters of which everyone in this House should take account, and which Governments in particular have a duty to handle responsibly.

John Redwood: I am attracted to my hon. Friend's idea that local opinion should carry more sway. What changes would he like to see in the present planning system to guarantee that that happens?

John Hayes: My right hon. Friend will know that I spoke about these matters at some length on Monday. He was one of the first people to demand a copy of my speech, because he takes a great interest in these things. I said on that occasion that the planning system is typically unresponsive. It is esoteric and it frustrates developers and bemuses members of the general public. The Government had an opportunity to do something about that in their Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, but rather than rooting planning in the community and making a transparent system, as the Minister said he wanted to do, by removing power and giving it to remote regions, I suspect that the Bill has made planning all the more esoteric and distant from the people who are affected by the decisions of planning authorities. I share my right hon. Friend's distaste for that attack on local democracy, which has been carried forward in the Minister's name. I am a supporter of local democracy, and I want planning decisions to be taken as locally as possible, as clearly as possible and in a way that is well understood by local people, in line with local wishes; but I shall say a little more about that in a few moments.
	The areas where the Government have extended the green belt have been well away from the areas where they should have done so. Indeed, the Library says in precise terms:
	These are probably not the areas in England where there is most pressure for development.
	That would be bad enough, but the other side of the coin with this Administration is their failure to come clean about brownfield development. Once again, I went to that definitive source of information, the House of Commons Library. You might think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I believed, in my innocence, that brownfield land would include disused factories, empty warehouses and sites that needed redevelopment and would benefit from new initiatives, new housing, bringing in new people and building new buildings. That is in line with comments that were made earlier from the Labour Benches. It has been made clear in various interventions that such development is necessary. It is certainly necessary when what we replace is worse than the new development.
	Brownfield land includes not only those sites, but according to my information, any land in the curtilage of an existing structure, which relates to the earlier point about gardens.
	A close examination of the statistics shows that a substantial proportion of what the Government claim is brownfield developmentbrownfield development is hard to measure because the Government do not give precise answers, but I have examined the national land use database statistical record from September 2003is not built on what would generally be recognised as brownfield land. That developed land consists not of scars on the landscape that should have been built on, but green spaces within urban areasdevelopments at the bottom of people's gardens. Frankly, that is the other side of the dud coin, and it is a con.
	The Government easily met their targets for brownfield development, which is an achievement that the Minister trumpets and discusses with great confidence, because the land that they have developed is not, by any reasonable definition, brownfield land. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who is an expert on such matters.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware of a case in my constituency, where the council proposed to take away some council tenants' gardens in order to meet the Government's targets for building on brownfield land? Given the Government's policy of rebuilding on brownfield land, all council tenants should watch out, because their gardens might be taken away for development.

John Hayes: My hon. Friend had briefed me on that additional point. I am always grateful for his expertise and enormous knowledge, which he often displays in the Chamber and in Committee. Once again, he has added an extra charge against the Minister, whose charge sheet grows ever longer, and perhaps the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) will add to it too.

Alan Whitehead: As the hon. Gentleman says, it is important to get the definition right. Does his definition of brownfield land solely consist of land upon which bricks have physically been placedthe building's footprintand does he define the marginal land around such a site as greenfield land? If a paving stone or some gravel had been placed on land in order to access a building, would he define the site as being in-between greenfield and brownfield land? He claims that the Government definition of brownfield land is vague, but is his definition of brownfield land as vague as that which he is attacking?

John Hayes: Most hon. Members would expect brownfield development first and foremost to take account of those sites that, by their continuation in their current form, are a scar on villages, towns, cities or the landscape. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test is well travelled, and he knows that many former commercial or industrial sites, which have not been redesignated for housing and which will never be reborn as industrial or commercial sites, would be appropriate for residential development.If I were lucky enough to be the Minister for Housing and Planningone day, I hope to hold that postI would develop those places and examine the mechanisms that the Government have put in place to bring that about.
	We know that the development of contaminated sites poses some problems, but it is not impossible to review the regulations, fiscal arrangements and the law to examine whether we can use more of those sites. In opposition, we are having such discussions with all the interested parties as we develop our thoughts and policies.
	Somewhere much further down my list might be the issue of in-fill, but it certainly would not be my top priority. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Conservative Members and, I suspect, Labour Members, too, would want first to have clear information about precisely what has been developed so far. I defy anyone to glean that information in precise terms from answers that Ministers have given or from the tabular information that is available from the Minister's Department. There are indications that a great number of back gardens have been developed. We can all make the calculation in approximate terms, and we all have anecdotal information from our constituencies concerning land that has been developed and is described as brown field, but is in fact nothing of the sort. Will the Minister give a commitment to provide better-quality information that breaks down the figures to tell us precisely what kind of land is being developed and called brown field?

Phyllis Starkey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Hayes: I have already given way to the hon. Lady twice, and I want to make a little more progress because many other hon. Members want to speak. I will try to give way again later on.
	The motion refers to the communities plan, which was alluded to in the exchanges that took place during my opening remarks. The Government believe that an extra 200,000 houses should be built in the south-east in addition to the 900,000 new homes that are planned up until 2016. The communities plan is designed to deliver 120,000 houses in the Thames gateway area alone. There are profound concerns about the implications of that for community, sustainability, environment and infrastructure. Yesterday, I was in Northamptonshire. I was engaged in some hard work, but I had the chance to talk to local people and take their view of the communities plan. I have a shocking revelation for the Ministerit was not a positive view. People are extremely worried about its implications for south Northamptonshire. They see it as filling the green space between villages. They believe that it will create commuter areas because communities will be unable to provide the employment or services to make them self-sustaining, so people will have to use those villages and towns as dormitories to travel elsewhere. They feel that their local opinion, although it has been voiced, is not being heard where it mattersat the Minister's desk, on his telephone and in his mailbag. They are frustrated that the considered opinions of local people are being overridden.
	We have to look again at the communities plan. I am not sure that it is ever appropriate to override local opinion in this way, but there is another side to it. If development is skewed into four areas in the south of England, where economic activity and employment are already substantial and there is already a disproportionately large portion of the nation's wealth, what does that say to the other parts of England and the kingdom? What does it say to the north-west and the north-east? What does it say to people in my own dear county of Lincolnshire? It says that we are going to build more homes and create more jobs and wealth where homes, jobs and wealth already exist. The other side to the communities plan is about kicking against a proper concern for the different parts of Britain, many of which are desperate for a boost.

Patrick Hall: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in the absence of a communities plansuch as the situation that existed under the Conservative Government whom he supportedthe pattern of planning decisions for housing development was characterised by housing estates being tagged on to towns and villages, often on appeal, in an unsustainable way that was disconnected from jobs and local services and increased the amount of car travel? That is what happens when a negative attitude is in the saddle and there is no sustainable communities plan. If the hon. Gentleman rejects the sustainable communities approach, does he have revised ideas on how things should be done?

John Hayes: What a good point the hon. Gentleman makes. He is right: much post-war development has been characterised by the sort of unacceptable development that he describes. Housing estates have been tacked on to the end of towns, as he put it. They are often not in keeping and character with the towns and introduce a population to the area who do not assimilate easily, perhaps because they are commuters or drawn from a specific group. For example, estates of bungalows are targeted at older or retired people. To get the community working, there needs to be good social mix, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman acknowledges.
	My vision is of incremental development in towns and cities that is in keeping with them. No town or village should be preserved in aspicall communities must grow and develop. All communities evolve, but it should happen gently, appropriately and with the consent and support of local people. That is not rocket science; it is the way in which most communities have developed from time immemorial. Suddenly increasing the size of a small town or village by 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. is a recent phenomenon. We then wonder why that did not work, why the community did not hang together, why the local infrastructure could not support it, why people could not get on a dentist's or doctor's waiting list and why they had to travel further for work and leisure, with all the attendant undesirable effects.
	We need a complete rethink of the way in which we plan for the future, which must be rooted in communities. Predict and provide produced the mess that the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) described and Government policy has now mutated into dictate and provide. That is likely to be even worse. The communities plan needs careful evaluation. In my view, it needs moreit requires challenge. That is not only my view. The Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is as sceptical as me. Its report states:
	The impact of such a housing programme on the environment could be unsustainable . . . The impact of developing so many homes in the South East, one of the most densely populated regions of Europe, has not been fully assessed . . . The additional homes could place excessive demands on the environment leading to the loss of green-field sites and excessive pressure on the water supply and other natural resources.
	I could go on, but perhaps that would embarrass the Minister even more. The Labour-dominated Select Committee took a measured and considered view of his policy and criticised it in fierce terms. With the Select Committee, local communities and the combined might of the Opposition Benches against him, he is under considerable pressure. I hope that he will bend under it in favour of what is right and good. One might have believed so, but we must now consider the revelation of the Barker review of housing supply.
	Mrs. Barker, not content with the massive increase in supply that the Government propose, does not simply want the communities plan to be implemented but up to 250,000 more houses to be built every year. Let us imagine the implications of that for the green fields of England. Not a community in Britain would be safe from the Government if they adopt the Barker review. Although they have not said that they will adopt itthey know the political consequencesthey have not said that they will not accept such targets.
	The Government claim that supply will have an effect on house prices and that affordability will be tackled by building countless more houses. I remind the Minister that new housing constitutes 1 per cent. of the housing stock and 10 per cent. of the transactions. To affect the price of housing by supply requires the sort of buildingand moreover 10 years that Mrs. Barker proposes. That means not a few hundred thousand extra houses but possibly between 2 million and 3 million more. They would be built on the green and pleasant land that I love and will defend with my hon. Friends.
	I should move on before I become too elegiac, but the Minister needs to come clean with us about where the Government stand on Barker. Will they go along with it and accept it or do they share my reservations? Let us have an honest answer on whether they believe in a development land tax. Let the Minister say today, We believe in such a tax. It is recommended in Barker. Let him honestly say that the Government believe in a housing policy, in the words of Kate Barker, independent of local government. Let him say he believes that; let us have an honest answer on Barker.
	I will tell the House my answer on Barker. I know that housing prices are influenced by interest rates, the disproportionate allure of home ownership in Britain, the relative unattractiveness of alternative investment vehicles and the level of non-housing borrowing secured against housing equity. Frankly, those things drive up and hold up house prices. To apply a supply-side solution to those demand-side issues is crude and unlikely to work. It would mean stamping on the wishes of local people, which is precisely what Kate Barker recognises. That is why she wants to transfer all the power to regional authorities, which would impose those targets on local people.

Phyllis Starkey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Hayes: I will, because I said I would.

Phyllis Starkey: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he is saying that the relationship between supply and demand has no effect on house prices? If he is saying that, can he explain why the increases in places such as Brighton, Oxford and Cambridge, where there is a relatively finite housing supply but increasing demand for it and prices are going through the roof, have nothing to do with that relationship?

John Hayes: Of course there is a relationship between supply and demand, but the hon. Lady, who clearly has studied these matters in some detail, will understand that the history of that relationship in this country shows a remarkable insensitivity as between supply and demand. In a textbook economic model, one would expect supply to increase to feed demand. One would expect a close relationship between supply and demand, but, if anything in this country, the most surprising thing about the housing market is the insensitivity between the two, not the closeness that she suggests.
	I simply say to the hon. Lady that she has to answer some questions about the 2001 census data, which have been largely ignored by Kate Barker and certainly ignored by the Minister and the Government, but which reveal that the ratio of dwellings to households is changing. There is an increasing number of dwellings1 million moreagainst households. That is 300,000 more than in the previous census, and 900,000 fewer people in this country than previous Government estimates show. I am amazed that Kate Barker did not take that on board. Frankly, the fact that she did not undermines the arguments on which her report is predicated.

Sydney Chapman: Will my hon. Friend confirm that in the last 25 years, while the population of the United Kingdom has increased by 4 million, so has the number of households? Those figures reveal the most startling demographic changes taking place in our society. Any solution of the housing problem must begin by addressing those changes.

John Hayes: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The real housing crisis involves not the net supply issue, but the relationship between provision and need. Look at building history: far more family homes have been built, typically in greenfield areas, than have houses suitable for single-person households. There are far too few adapted houses, wheelchair-friendly houses and houses for older people. There are far too few opportunities for those who want to downsize. Often, older people want to downsize because it is much more convenient for them to live in a smaller property, but they cannot do so while staying in the community in which they have lived and to which they owe their loyalty.
	There are all kinds of supply issues, and all kinds of issues involving the match between provision and need, but those are not taken seriously into account by Kate Barker's report. I have heard nothing from the Government about them either.

Matthew Green: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Hayes: I want to end my speech, and I know the hon. Gentleman will make a pithy and powerful speech of his own later; but if he wants me to give way briefly, because I like him so much I will.

Matthew Green: I thank the hon. Gentleman. He pointed out that there were now 1 million more houses than households. That is partly due to the large and increasing number of second homes. Does he accept the principle adopted by us, and indeed the Government, of ending second-home council tax discounts?

John Hayes: As a matter of principle, I try never to support or agree with the Liberal Democrats. I take the hon. Gentleman's point, however. One of the repercussions of what I described as the relative unattractiveness of alternative investment vehicles has been people putting their money into property, and the Government's pension shamblesI know that the Minister is not personally responsible for that, and perhaps he is embarrassed about ithas exacerbated the problem. The hon. Gentleman is right: the explosion in second home ownership and the buy-to-let market should be dealt with. The truth is, however, that if people had felt more secure about other kinds of investment that explosion would not have happened.
	The motion calls for a very different approach. As I said earlier, what we need is an urban renaissance. We need to tie housing policy closely to regeneration policy. We need to understand that the only way of regenerating our towns and cities is to reachieve the population mix that will make them vibrant and viable. We do understand that sustainability means having the public services, the employment, the life in our towns and cities that will make people want to live in them and bring up their children in them.
	We believe that the Government's policy of seeing housing as separate from those thingsas I think they dois misguided, short-sighted and against the interests of the communities who resent so bitterly what the Government will impose on them by concreting over so many of our green fields. There is a different approach, a new vision. We need policies built on sound foundations. We need to help more people afford homes of their own. We need to ensure that everyone has a warm, safe home built to lastthe least advantaged as well as those with good fortune. We need to give local communities control over how they develop. We need to protect and enhance our precious environment. And we need to regenerate urban Britain, building high-quality homes on brownfield sites.
	Those are our goalsgoals that are at the heart of authentic conservatism. The idea of a home can inform this party, but it can also inform the Government, and it can inform our nation. Homes are a proper symbol of social justice, of security, of private ownership, of independence from intrusive Government, of local identity and of embryonic community life. We need to find homes for people so that they can enjoy all those things. We need to give the people the homes that they want to anchor them for life's journey.

Keith Hill: I beg to move, To leave out from House to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	applauds the Government for maintaining the amount of Green Belt in England and its pledge to maintain or increase the amount of Green Belt; notes that development of previously developed sites for housing has a crucial role in meeting local needs for housing in the Green Belt and welcomes the Government's crackdown on urban sprawl, by adopting a sequential approach to the release of land and planning growth where it is needed; supports its proactive approach in improving the sustainability of rural communities; applauds the Government's success in achieving its previously developed land target early and increasing average densities of new development, which have helped to take the pressure off green fields; applauds the Government for introducing new planning policies in PPG17 to protect open spaces of value to the local community; and praises the Government for introducing the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to improve the speed and quality of decision making and place sustainability at the heart of the planning system, and for its new emphasis on community involvement, ensuring local people's views are an integral part of the plan making process.
	As the House knows, I am a devoted parliamentarian. I relish the opportunity for debate, and it is nice to be so much in demand. I have been here for quite a few Opposition day debates of late.
	Of course the Government are fully aware of the importance of housing and regeneration. That is why we pushed it to the top of the political agenda, and why we are investing a massive 22 billion through our sustainable communities plan over the next three years. Now it seems that after years of silence and inaction, the Opposition have finally woken up to the significance of these issues.
	Of course, those of a less charitable disposition than my own might think that today's debate has something to do with the imminent local elections and that there is an element of opportunism, even scaremongering, on the part of the Opposition in raising these issues in the terms that they have today. Use of such vulgarisms as town cramming and concreting over the countryside is part of that. Indeed, complaining at the same time about too much development in towns and about concreting over the countryside might seem to some like a classic case of trying to have it both ways. Far be it for me to say so.
	The fact of the matter is that the Opposition's record speaks louder than their rhetoricand we have certainly heard plenty of that this afternoon. After all, it was the Conservative party that stood idly by while development gobbled up our countryside. Thousands of little boxes were spread across our land, all at dismally low housing densities, most of them designed for nowhere and built anywhere. When the Conservatives came to office in 1979, less than 5 per cent. of retail turnover was based on stores outside existing town centres. By 2000, it was growing to nearly a third and rising, as the effects of the big out-of-town shopping centresthe Conservative legacybegan to be felt.
	In fact, during the 18 years of Tory Government, nearly 13 million sq m of out-of-town shopping floor space was developedshopping centres, retail parks and superstoresand the consequence was the devastation of our historic town and city centres. I wonder, even now, whether the Opposition have fully woken up to the significance of the legacy of unsustainable sprawl that they left to us.
	Let us take one example of that legacy. The motion begins by noting that
	development of the Green Belt continues unabated.
	Continues from when? Well, let us just consider the facts, using published Government statistics. They show that in 1996, of all the new homes built, 2 per cent. were built in the green belt; and in 2001, 4 per cent. were built in the green belt. Let us be clear: new building does not just happen. It often takes years between the granting of the planning permission and the completion of the development. It often, we think, takes too long, which is why we have brought in our planning reforms to speed up the process.
	The plain fact of the matter is that many, if not most, of the planning permissions for this doubling of new build in the green belt in the late 1990s were granted under the last Tory Government. So if the Opposition insist on talking about the despoliation of the green belt, we all know who the guilty party isthem.

John Redwood: rose

Keith Hill: I give way to the right hon. Gentleman, who I am sure will inject a note of common sense into our proceedings.

John Redwood: I am grateful to the Minister for his rave review. Does he accept that a larger number of people are coming into this countrylegally and illegallythan are leaving it? Some external bodies believe that it could be as many as 250,000 extra people a yearequivalent to a city the size of Southampton, which would be necessary to house them all properly. What does the Minister believe is happening in that respect and what impact is it having on the housing market? What would be a sustainable rate for granting people from abroad the right to live and work here?

Keith Hill: We certainly are in pre-election mode, are we not, with that sort of typical Tory scaremongering? Let me put it to the right hon. Gentleman that population growth stemming from various sources is, of course, a significant driver of the demand for housing. We should also be awareI believe that my old jousting partner, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) put his finger on the problemthat there are other significant drivers.
	More than 40 per cent. of the demand for new housing arises from natural demographic changes in our population. Some are to be welcomed. For example, we live longer; the elderly do not vacate homes on the scale that they did in the past; many people choose to live alone. That is their choice. Unfortunately, other factorsfamily discord, divorce and so forthare significant drivers that can often force people to live singly.
	There are therefore many factors at work. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) mentioned the Thames gateway, and the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), may want to say something about the true Conservative position on that development. After all, it stems from the work of Lord Heseltine, that visionary who used to represent Henley. However, the fact is that two thirds of the growth in housing demand in Kent arises from changes in that wonderful county's existing population. Folk there live longer and choose to live singly, but they also suffer from some of our society's disorders.
	Let us be clear: it is not a question of blaming the enemy outside, but of recognising that serious changes are occurring in our society that we must try to accommodate.

Mark Prisk: Will the Minister give way?

Keith Hill: No. I shall try and let the hon. Gentleman in later but in these short debates, with many hon. Members wanting to speak, I am conscious that Front-Bench speakers must be as brief as possible.
	I want to be reasonable about the green belt, which we all cherish. It is wrong to whip up hysteria by making exaggerated claims about its loss. Nearly two thirds of new development in the green belt has been made on land that was previously developed, and total use of green-belt land amounts to only 0.02 per cent. a year.
	The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) has been silent, at least in a formal sense, throughout our exchanges so far. I have been courteous enough not to draw attention to her, but if she insists on protesting about the green belt I shall draw the House's attention to her website, where she makes it clear that she entered politics to protect the green belt in her locality. I am not surprised: after all, the Conservative Solihull council adopted the development plan on 22 April 1997that is, before the general election of that yearthat led to the loss of some 260 hectares of the Solihull green belt.

Caroline Spelman: Does the Minister accept that the Government pulled the rug out from under Solihull council's feet when they redefined what constitutes a brownfield site? They said that my constituents' back gardens were brownfield sites, and in so doing they set neighbour against neighbour. The council found it extremely difficult to defend itself in court.

Keith Hill: I provoked the hon. Lady to speak. I am not sure that central office will approve of that, on this of all days. She knows that redefining gardens as residential land capable of development has been part of the land use classification system since 1975. The Opposition did not challenge that when they were in government, and we inherited that approach from them. I may say more about that if the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) intervenes on me later.
	Planning policy guidance note 2 is there to protect the green belt. It confirms that the green belt must be protected as far as can be seen ahead, sets the defining boundaries and provides a presumption against inappropriate development. The guidance is working, and we stand by it.
	In addition, the Government have set clear targets for each English region, including those regions that contain the growth areas, to maintain or increase the current area designated as green-belt land in local plans. That is the policy that the Government are pursuing.
	On a more serious note, I need to say something about the recently published green belt statistics.
	On 29 March 2004, I announced in a written parliamentary statement the release of new statistics on the change in the amount of green belt in England between 1997 and 2003. They showed an increase of around 25,000 hectares in the amount of green belt identified in adopted local and unitary development plans. It was subsequently pointed out to us that the published figures contained errors, including a significant transcription error for which, as the Minister, I of course take full responsibility. In addition, minor corrections have come to our attention in relation to three other local authorities. That is why, in a reply on 10 May to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), I published a summary of revised figures for green belt increases between 1997 and 2003, giving the corrected figure of around 19,000 hectares.
	In the light of those errors, I want to assure the House that further work is being carried out on checking the revised figures, in order to ensure that they are now robust. That will take two to three weeks. Once we are satisfied that they are accurate, a revised statistical release will be issued and placed in the Libraries of both Houses. I apologise to the House for the errors. The House will, I know, understand that such things happen, but they should not, and for that, I apologise. However, I should remind the House that statistical errors do nothing to undermine the fundamental point that I want to make today in relation to the Government's record on the green belt: since we came to office, there have been significant increases in the green belt in England.
	Some 19,000 hectares were added between 1997 and 2003, with a further potential 12,000 hectares proposed in emerging local plans. If those proposed increases come to fruition, that would be a creditable 31,000 additional hectaresan area bigger than that covered by Birmingham city council. I contrast that record with what happened between 1993 and 1997, when the green belt increased by a mere 2,000 hectares. Already we have expanded the green belt in our first six years 10 times more than the Tories did in their last four years, and we expect to do better.

John Hayes: The Minister has been honest about the error in the figures, and I accept what he has said. However, I question the proportion of green belt that has been added in areas where development pressure is not the greatest. Most people see the green belt as a means of preventing urban sprawl where development pressure is greatest, and that was its original intention. Why is the Minister adding to the green belt in places where that is not so?

Keith Hill: I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman received my apology. I understand his point, but if he looks in detail at the figures that I published on 10 May he will see that significant reductions have not been made in the green belt in areas of development pressureand, in some cases, it has been increased. Major green belt additions between 1997 and 2003 were made in places such as Blackburn, Doncaster, Coventry, Stafford, Christchurch and west Lancashire. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that those in the midlands and north of England are at least as entitled as those elsewhere to receive the advantages and the protection of the green belt.
	Let me say loud and clear that we have no plans to relax planning controls on the green belt. The fundamental policy aim remains to keep land around urban areas permanently open, to prevent urban sprawl and to protect the countryside from encroachment. Where green belt boundary changes are proposed, we want to be satisfied that all opportunities for development within the urban area contained by the green belt have been properly considered, including brownfield land.

David Heath: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman about a particular aspect of development in rural areas. Many of my constituents are getting increasingly irateI do not believe that they are motivated by discrimination or bigotryabout the fact that Travellers' sites are being allowed on private land where my constituents would have no hope whatever of having permanent development allowed. That is causing friction where there was none before. Is his Department prepared to do something about that, because I fear that it will result in very bad race relations in some parts of England?

Keith Hill: I appreciate the temperate way in which the hon. Gentleman raised that issue. As I have said before at the Dispatch Box, it is an issue not merely for those who live in the countryside but for those who live in urban areas. I assure him that my Department is alert to it. We are active on that subject and we expect to make proposals for revised guidance and more effective enforcement in due course. I hope that that gives him and his constituents some reassurance.
	It is important that local people should also be involved in decisions about the green belt, so the need for boundary changes should be considered first in a review of the regional spatial strategy. Only when the need for change has been firmly established should detailed changes be considered through the local plan process. That ensures that local people have a full opportunity to make representations or object to proposed changes.
	The Opposition accuse us in the motion of concreting over green fields,
	of losing
	green spaces in suburban areas through infill development
	and of destroying rural communities.

Patrick Hall: The Conservative spokesman was generous today in acknowledging the shortfalls of the speculative, mainly private housing development that has too much characterised the past few decades. I think that I am being fair in saying that his solution is to favour incremental, small-scale growth that is decided by local communities. I agree that much development could be dealt with like that, but does my right hon. Friend agree that there are strategic issues to do with demography, household change, employment, transport, pollution

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Patrick Hall: Those cannot be dealt with

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When I rise to my feet, the hon. Gentleman should resume his seat. His intervention is far too long, especially when there is very limited time for debate.

Keith Hill: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In a nutshell, I agree with my hon. Friend. Where appropriate, it is right to make small-scale development, but we should not delude ourselves, as a House or as a society, that the pressure for new homes that is already present in London and the south-east can be dealt with by small-scale development about which the local community is the sole arbiter. That is simply unrealistic. We have to go for the larger-scale development that the Government have set out for growth areas. That applies to his constituency and I am grateful for his strategic vision on that approach. We are already bringing in the essential infrastructure and public services that need to be present at the beginning of a housing development and that in the past were unfortunately often brought in at the end, if at all.

Kelvin Hopkins: I reinforce the point that my right hon. Friend is making. Does he agree that we cannot cope with the 7,000 families waiting for new homes in Luton by small incremental changes?

Keith Hill: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is, as he and I well know, not invariably the case, but I wholeheartedly endorse his observations on this occasion. The sort of proposals being made in his locality for what are, in essence, urban extensions offer a way forward, but the scale might have to be substantial. There is a housing need that must be addressed and no shilly-shallying can avoid that reality.
	I shall try to press on. I am aware that I have already been speaking for a significant time.
	On the terms of the Opposition motion, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that in 1996 the then Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), published the Green Paper, Household Growth: Where Shall We Live? It was an extremely tentative document; perhaps the Conservative Government could see the shades of night closing in and did not want to over-commit themselves on policy.
	Nevertheless, the Green Paper contained two important themes. The first was the need for intensification of existing residential areas, including, I am bound to tell the House, the use of gardens. That is in paragraph 6.2town cramming, I suppose the present Opposition would call it. The second theme was the recognition that not all necessary housing development could be located in existing urban areasconcreting over the countryside, in their terms, I suppose.
	Let me put these questions to the Opposition. What has changed since 1996? Do they believe that they got it wrong in 1996? If they did, what is their answer now to the question they posed themselves only eight years ago?

John Hayes: rose

Keith Hill: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who might care to answer my question.

John Hayes: I am reminded of places such as Macclesfield whose Member of Parliament is our distinguished hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) and where the local council and community want incremental development of the type that I was advocating, yet the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister's boss, put a moratorium, through strong guidance, on all development in the town.

Keith Hill: I am aware of the issues in the north-west of England, which are a matter for lively debate in the area, but I must point out two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, in the preceding period of the regional plan, there was an excess of supply over demand in the region, so the Government clearly have to respond to that reality. Secondly, the Government have ambitious plans for the regeneration of cities in the north-west, so significant new build will be needed in those areas as part of the regeneration process.
	I shall continue, but I may be a little churlish in dealing with future interventions. We all know that, at present, there is a lot of Tory local election propaganda about the Government wanting to concrete over the countryside, but the blunt fact is that the legacy of the Tories was unplanned urban sprawl. That is why the Labour Government introduced a sequential approach: brownfield first, greenfield last. That is why we set a 60 per cent. brownfield targetand it is working. In 2002, 64 per cent. of new dwellings, including conversions, were built on such land.
	Our policies will not only reduce the profligate waste of greenfield land so characteristic of the executive home developments that were so beloved of the previous Government but help to ensure better designed developments that provide for a wide range of needs.
	We have already seen rises in housing density. The density of new dwellings in England in 2002 was 27 per hectare, a figure that had remained unchanged at 25 since 1996 and was a great deal lower before then. We want further rises. We have already said that in the south-east we want all planned dwellings built at an average of 30 per hectare, up from the 25 we inherited. By 2016, as a consequence, we will have saved 4,000 hectares of land from new build, an area equivalent to the urban area of Ipswich. We recently announced a new initiative to bring 1,650 hectares of surplus public sector land into use for new homesan area equivalent in size to the London borough of Islington.
	Part of our success in protecting the green belt has been the result of revitalising our cities. They now have a vitality and self-confidence that has been missing for years. That was admirably highlighted in the report, A Tale of Eight Cities, published by my Department recently.

Ann Cryer: rose

Keith Hill: I am hurrying on, but I feel that I owe it to my hon. Friend to give way one last time.

Ann Cryer: My right hon. Friend has spoken about brownfield development. A developer in my constituency is anxious to develop a brownfield site that is perfect for that purpose, but the previous owner has a waste disposal licence from the Environment Agency. Apparently, neither the current owner nor I can do anything to about that and it is deterring him from developing a perfectly good brownfield site.

Keith Hill: I often observe in these debates that there is nothing more deadly than the friendly intervention, and that was a perfect example. I am entirely unsighted of those issues. I should be delighted if my hon. Friend were to write to me. I shall seek to reply to her, within the constraints of my quasi-judicial role as a Planning Minister. I hope that that gives her some satisfaction.
	The truth is that people are returning to our cities, which are cleaner, safer, greener and creating more jobs and prosperity for their populations and regions. Take Manchester. Fifteen years ago, fewer than 300 people lived in the centre of that city of nearly half a million people. Now, the city centre has a population of 15,000 people, and it is growing. Many of them are young people who have colonised refurbished Victorian warehouses. Similar trends are evident in most of our major cities' central areas and they are expected to grow substantially in the next few years, with the planned new residential developments. That regeneration is welcomed, but some apparently think that we are planning to build in people's back gardens.
	Let us not forget the wider reforms to the planning system. We need to put planning back at the centre of local decision making and to restore pride in both planning and planners. That is why the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, so recently passed by the House, introduces a simpler and more flexible local and regional plan-making system, promoting better community involvement and giving local people more say in what their local environment looks like. For the first time, we have given the planning system the statutory purpose of contributing to sustainable development.
	Let me make it entirely clear that our vision of creating sustainable communities applies equally to rural areas. The fact is that some of our rural areas are suffering, not because we are hellbent on concreting over the countryside, but because local people cannot afford to live there. That is why we have doubled the Housing Corporation's target for low-cost housing in villages from 800 in 2001 to 1,600 last year and why we will build a further 3,500 low-cost homes in villages over the next two years. That is why we are taking further steps to make it easier for councils to limit the resale of ex-council housing in rural areas, so that those homes are reserved for local people. There are now 30 such areasup from 24 in 1997and soon there will be 35. That is not rhetoric; it is real action to protect rural communities.
	The choice offered to the House today is simple. We can go forward with this Government's policies: strong, successful, vibrant towns and cities; better designed, more sustainable new development in which homes, jobs and services are planned together, not left to the mercy of the market; and safeguarding our countryside by prioritising brownfield land, increasing the green belt and taking practical action to protect rural communities. The choice is a positive vision of sustainable communities or a return to the sprawl of the past.
	The Opposition bring to the House a record in which out-of-town retail devastated our urban shopping centres, our great provincial cities were ravaged by boom-bust economics and low-density housing sprawled across the countryside. The House has a choice: to go back to the mistakes of the past or to embrace a positive agenda in which economic progress, social justice and environmental concern go hand in hand. The Opposition's motion offers nothing. It reminds us of their past failings. It tells us that they have nothing to offer for the future, apart from opportunism and sloganising. I urge the House to reject the motion.

Matthew Green: We have just heard two speeches, but neither would bear a huge amount of detailed scrutiny.
	The Conservatives' motion is broadly on the point and for that reason we shall support it. However, it is only broadly there. There are difficulties with the Government's approach to planning. They are over-centralist. The recent Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill takes powers away from local authorities and passes them up to unelected regional authorities. We tried to prevent that but unfortunately the Tories caved in and the Government got their way.
	The Government are over-centralist in their approach to housing numbers; that point has already been discussed. They cannot allow for local variation. Most parts of the south-east are screaming out that they do not want as many houses as the Government want them to take. However, for the past six months I have been asking for an extra 1,000 houses in South Shropshire, but the Minister still cannot provide them because of the centralised approach that is taken. [Interruption.] He says that he is working on it, and I hope he is. We wait with bated breath in my area.
	Overall, the Government's approach fails to trust local authorities as effective planning authorities. The new Bill gives local authorities a greater ability to plan, but the imposition of central targets over that process is the problem. That is where the Minister will discover that the nirvana and vision that he portrayed at the end of his speech will fall down. He needs to give way a bit and trust local authorities more.
	In the Department, housing and planning are almost in separate silos. They are not seen as one and the same thing. I realise that the Minister speaks on both issues, but there is a lack of joined-up thinking between the planning system and the need for more affordable housing. The planning system is not used as a vehicle to deliver affordable housing. Several options are available, but they have not been taken up. Too much work takes place in silos.
	None the less, the motion is a bit rich given that it comes from the Conservatives. We have heard the Minister outline their past failings, but the very title of the motion, Town Cramming and Urban Sprawl, gives the game away. They are worried about building in towns and building outside towns. They clearly do not want building anywhere. In fact, the purpose of this debate was to allow certain Tory Back Benchers to jump up and say, I do not want all these extra houses built in my constituency. We heard that several times during the passage of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. This is not nimbyism but nimcyismnot in my constituency. The Conservatives say that they want more affordable housing as long as it is not built in their constituencies. They will quite happily build it everywhere else as long as it is not in the places that they represent.

Phyllis Starkey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the other point that came across in the Tory spokesperson's speech was that the Conservative party wished to direct people to where they should live in England? That is not in the south-east but up north where there is a lot of space. The Conservatives also want to direct people into the sort of households that they should have. The Conservatives believe that people are spreading out too much and that they should live together whether they want to or not.

Matthew Green: The hon. Lady may have a point, but there is a consensus that housing density should increase. She was verging on saying that that should not happen. However, in broad terms I agree with her.
	I have experience of local Conservatives in my area. Their approach to development seems to be to say no to everything. In fact, the Conservative party appears to have a planning policy that is Always say no. It is the most negative approach to development that I have ever seen. It does not matter whether jobs or anything else are at stake; it is simply a matter of Let's say no.
	We have seen the Conservatives' failures in government. Let us not forget that out-of-town supermarkets were developed under the Conservatives, and that in places such as Malvern, supermarkets have devastated the town centre. I am worried that this Government will reverse their policy of stopping such developments.

Patrick Hall: rose

Matthew Green: I will not give way because I am conscious of how much time was taken up by the first two speeches and I realise that other Members want to speak.
	There is a policy vacuum in the Conservative party. The one occasion on which the Conservatives announced a policy on planning and housing was Monday. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) made the announcement and then appeared on Newsnight, where he was well and truly Paxman-ed about it. It was a bit of a Newsnight mugging. It may not be fairI do not think that Jeremy Paxman is fairbut it revealed that the policy did not require any legislative changes and might have an inflationary impact on the housing market. When the Conservatives announce a policy they have a problem, but the rest of the time, when they do not have a policy, they are just the party that likes to say No.
	The Conservatives' wanting to take on the planning issue in local elections would be understandable if they had stood up for what they say they believe in. Let us turn to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. An amendment on the transfer of powers to unelected regional authorities was ping-ponging between the two Houses. This House may not have been made aware that the Conservative motion before the House is their second. They put one on the Order Paper and then changed it. The first said at the end that
	local authorities should be able to decide the priorities for local development, not unelected regional authorities,
	but they removed those words. I wonder why. They are embarrassed that their Lords let them down and allowed the Government to proceed with a Bill that transfers powers to unelected regional authorities from county, metropolitan and unitary authorities. Far from defending the rights of local democracy, they caved in, and they changed the wording of their motion because they are so embarrassed about it.

Edward Davey: What does my hon. Friend think may be the implications of that for next year's county council elections? This year's local elections have reared their head in today's debates. Does my hon. Friend think that the Liberal Democrats could campaign on this issue in the 2005 county council elections?

Matthew Green: I would be very surprised if Liberal Democrat councillors throughout the counties did not point out the Conservatives' failure to defend elected members over unelected regional authorities. I would also be surprised if it did not get mentioned in the odd Focus leaflet. Members from other parties like to mention Focus leaflets, but before they jumped up I thought that I would do it for them.
	I have had another experience of the Tories wearing their local planning hat. It comes from the other local authority in my area: Tory-run Bridgnorth district council. I do not often mention it; frankly, it is best not to mention it most of the time. A supermarket is to be built in the centre of Bridgnorth. The issue is not whether that is right but the approach that the Tories took. They allowed the senior planning officer to do all the negotiations with the supermarket on his own. He then wrote the development control report stating whether the company should get planning permission, and he spoke in the debate. That was allowed by Conservative-run Bridgnorth council. It then allowed the planning officer to interfere with the legal officer's duty by trying to prevent councillors from speaking because he thought that they might be opposed to the development. The most recent failure is the fact that a meeting was held in secret to discuss the deal and the application, which are one and the same, and councillors who turned up were given the relevant papers and told that they had to hand them back at the end.
	That is how the Conservatives run local planning: they do it in secret with no regard to proper and decent practices.
	I urge the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings to condemn the conduct of Conservative-led Bridgnorth council.
	I hope that in her winding-up speech the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), will touch on planning policy statements. We have spent 18 months debating the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, but the detail that is critical to whether or not someone gets planning permission is included in planning policy statements, which have replaced planning policy guidance. PPSs, however, are never debated in the House. They are produced by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, are the subject of consultation, and are signed off by Ministers. They are crucial to planning decisions but we never have an opportunity to debate them. We can argue about the system of planning in a planning Bill, but we can never debate the nuts and bolts of the planning system.
	If the Minister for Housing and Planning believes in an open and accountable planning system, he should allow us to debate PPSs, which come up regularly for review. Draft PPS6 has raised a number of concerns, because the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury appear to have had an influence in allowing out-of-town supermarket developments again. I believe that the ODPM is concerned, but has issued the statement none the less. PPS6 favours developers of large-scale multiple retail units over other retailers such as small shops in town centres, which could be damaging to town centres. We know how much damage was caused in the 1980s when supermarkets were built on out-of-town sites, but there is concern that PPS6 will lead to exactly the same problem again. A husband and wife in my constituency have summed it up very nicely:
	The centres of small market towns all over Britain will be destroyed just as they have been in France, more small businesses will fail, and many of the jobs created in these new shopping centres will be at the expense of our existing ones. We are constantly being urged to use our cars less and yet new housing developments in the countryside will only encourage more commuting. Why doesn't the Government actively encourage the owners of town centre properties to refurbish . . . ?
	With PPS6, we are in danger of creating more large out-of-town shopping centres. I hope that the Under-Secretary will make it clear that that is not the intention and that if necessary, the Government will change the statement.

Richard Younger-Ross: My hon. Friend has mentioned out-of-town developments. The Opposition said that they were going to stop such developments, but they started the process. My hon. Friend may be aware that a Conservative Secretary of State allowed a number of years for the ban to come into effect, by which time all the supermarkets had submitted their applications, as has been pointed out. If the supermarkets are allowed to re-establish themselves on such sites, that will sound the death knell for even more town centres. Does my hon. Friend agree that the supermarkets are causing the strange death of merry England?

Matthew Green: I would not want to vilify supermarkets or go as far as Lord Rooker, who speaks for the ODPM in the House of Lords. Only a couple of months ago, he referred to
	the spivs in the retail industry[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 February 2004; Vol. 657, c. 854.]
	not, I think, one of the highlights of recent ODMP speeches. There are, however, problems with supermarket developments, particularly on out-of-town sites.
	I turn to another planning policy statementdraft PPS7, which covers rural areas. I have two concerns, which I hope the Minister will address. One is the general nature of PPS7. I quote from a constituent, a member of the local Campaign to Protect Rural England, who makes a powerful point, although perhaps it is expressed a little too strongly:
	My main overall concern about the Draft is that it appears to be very heavily biased in favour of almost any form of economic development almost anywhere in the countryside. There is totally inadequate emphasis on the importance of the countryside as a valuable and vulnerable asset in its own rightand on the consequent importance of safeguarding it for its own sake.
	I hope the Minister will give assurances that draft PPS7 will not allow significant business development of an inappropriate sort in the countryside. Clearly, farm diversification needs to take place, but that would happen under the current PPG7. I hope the Minister will begin to address some of the concerns that are being raised about relaxing the rules too much in draft PPS7.
	There is a second and more serious problem with PPS7: its potential effect on affordable housing. The Minister knows that one of the few ways of creating affordable housing in rural areas is through the use of exception sites. Draft PPS7 appears to rule out the use of exception sites for affordable housing in rural areas. That will have a dramatic effect because it will drive the young people away from the villages to the urban centres. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us that that is not the intent of PPS7, and that if that is its effect, she will change it.
	Finally, I turn to an issue that the Minister raised, but which was not touched on by the Conservatives, surprisinglythat is housing density. I am surprised that with all their worries about town cramming and development spreading out into the countryside, the Conservatives did not mention housing density. Perhaps they were worried because the figures for housing density when they were in government were pretty awful.
	The Minister trumpets the fact that housing density is going up, but the figures are still dismal. The most recent figures we have, which I am sad to say are from 2002, show that 27 dwellings per hectare is being achieved. According to the Government's guidance the percentage should be higher. The median point of the range being discussed would be 40 dwellings per hectarehigher than the Minister mentioned. If that had been achieved over the past few years, 40 per cent. more homes would have been produced on the land that has been used since the Government came to power. That is the effect of getting the housing density numbers up.
	We do not need estates of executive homes with gardens. We need more dense construction, because that is the way of delivering the affordable houses that we need. We do not deny that we need extra housing. We will not put our heads in the sand like the Conservatives and pretend that we can get away with no more extra houses. We need extra houses, but we need to make sure that they will not devour the countryside. I shall not become all Elgar-like, as the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings was, talking about green and pleasant Land. I thought he would get on to dark Satanic mills after a while.
	The debate, as is always the case when we are coming up to local elections, has been a lot of froth and very little policy. We know the Conservatives have no policy. We know their record is appalling. All they can do is point out some of the problems that the Government have created, and we agree with the words of the motion because they analyse some of the problems correctly.
	The Government, if one believes them, say, Don't worry. We've got it all in hand. It's all going to be sorted, but their policies do not add up to sorting the problems of affordable housing and protecting the countryside, which could be achieved if they reviewed the policies. I urge the Government to look seriously at integrating housing and planning policies more closely. I do not believe they have done so sufficiently. That lack of integration is leading to the problems that give rise to debates such as this on the Floor of the House.

Colin Burgon: I am aware of the time, so I shall try to cut my comments short. The Conservatives will be pleased that my thunderous attack on their policies in the 1980s will have to be dropped; I shall stick to some fairly positive things.
	I want to bring a northern perspectiveif I am allowed to mention the north in this debateto the issue of town planning and urban sprawl. I shall illustrate my comments with examples from my Elmet constituency, which is full of towns and villages of markedly different characters that are very conscious of their identities. I share the desire of local people to maintain their own geographical integrity, for want of a better phrase. We do not want villages such as Micklefield to merge with towns such as Garforth, and we do not want Garforth to merge with Kippax or, God forbid, Kippax to merge with Allerton Bywater, where I live.
	As I hope has come through in the debate, people are realistic enough to recognise that new homes are needed, and the Minister outlined why they are needed. The reasons include a change in housing patterns and household formation, the fact that we are living longer and the fact that, thanks to a Labour Government, wealth and affluence are growing. My area faces high demand because it is considered a pleasant place to live that has very good facilities. When I travel around the constituency, people tell me that they want their sons and daughters to be able to get a house there and to live in the area when they get married or move into relationships.
	The big question isthe Labour party has had a big conversation, so perhaps we should have a few big questionswhere should we try to build those homes? Part of the answer to that big question is: on brownfield sites. I do not recognise portrayals, such as those of the Conservative party, of the developments that the Government have encouraged. I am here today to praise Leeds city council for the success that it has achieved with housing developments in brownfield locations.
	The last figures that I looked at, which were for 200304, showed that 80 per cent. of all new homes built in the great city of Leeds in that time were developed on brownfield sites. The positive impact is that, in the review of the unitary development plan for Leeds, we have been able to remove some 352 hectares from planned development and move it back into green-belt land. In areas such as Scholes and Kippax in my constituency, that has been well received. The only blot on the landscape, if I may use that phrase, is the plan for large-scale development at the northern end of Whinmoor, which I will do my best to oppose and defeat. That development would come on the back of the proposed extension to the ring road.
	I am not following a nimbyist line on this issue. My constituency has four or five key brownfield sites, and they are not in people's back gardens. I am amazed that anybody thinks that we could hit housing figures by building in people's back gardens. All I can say is that some of the Conservative Members who have spoken must have exceptionally big back gardens. [Interruption.] Perhaps they have front gardens as well

Robert Syms: And drives.

Colin Burgon: They even have drives; they have everything, the Conservatives.

Andrew Mitchell: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman on that point. This is a question not of houses with big gardens, but of where developers may knock down two, three or four houses to obtain access to a large stretch of land that he and I would regard as gardens, so that they can put up 16 or 24 flats. That is the point.

Colin Burgon: I accept that, and I am glad that we are seeking to promote a better definition. Some of the terms that were thrown about earlier were a bit too loose, so I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments.
	In my constituency, there are several brownfield sites. There is a petrol station at Micklefield with a car park alongside it, as well as the Swarcliffe development and two other sitesone in Wetherby and another in my home village of Allerton Bywater. The crucial point is that developments on such sites are helping us to meet housing demand and, importantly for people in my area, to protect the adjoining green belt.
	That is particularly apparent in the case of the millennium village, which I shall deal with later.
	In terms of northern house prices, Wetherby is an expensive place to live. People in Wetherby say that they cannot get on the housing ladder and stay in that pleasant market town. If one calls into Wetherby for a cup of teahon. Members might consider this when they drive up the A1the Micklethwaite Farm development site, which is a classic example of a brownfield development, is just before the river on the left-hand side as one drives into the town centre after pulling off the A1.
	House prices are high in that area, so I am particularly pleased that 23 of the 102 properties on that site are affordable homes, ranging from two to five-bedroom units. They have been sold to a housing association that will run them and let them at social rents, which is good news for people in Wetherby. That is one way to begin to address the grave housing shortage, whichlet us be bluntthe Conservatives' policy of selling off council houses has exacerbated. There can be no debate on that point.
	In my home village of Allerton Bywater, we are blessed with one of the Government's millennium villagesthe first one was in Greenwich, and now the scheme has moved on to Allerton Bywater. The project has been run under the guidance of English Partnerships, which is brilliant at engaging people in the democratic process, helping them to understand what the development is about and addressing their fears and concerns.
	The 25-hectare millennium village site is a good example of mixed-use development. The site formerly provided jobs for 1,400 miners, and the millennium village has brought jobs back into the area as well as housing. The village includes 500 homes, 100 of which will be sold under shared equity schemes. As a result of those schemes, 20 per cent. of the houses will enable younger people to get on the first rung of the housing ladder. I have spoken to representatives of English Partnerships, who say that local people welcome the scheme.
	The millennium village consists of well-designed, high-quality housing, which is important, and it has also revived our community buildings. The old school, which was in a state of disrepair, has been renovated as a community centre and library, and the miners' welfare building, which houses the cricket and bowling teams and various other activities, has been rebuilt and will be reopened shortly. In that sense, the development is a boon. The crucial point is that the millennium village has saved a beautiful swathe of greenfield land between Kippax and Allerton Bywater, which will not be built on because the millennium village partly meets housing need.
	Having listened to Conservative Members today, I urge them to get in touch with the leader of the Conservative group in Leeds, who followed a duplicitous and dishonest policy of opposing that development while demanding the protection of the green belt. Tough choices are necessary in such matters, and we supported the development in order to protect the green belt.
	I have a few additional points for the Minister. I hope that PPG3 will not be weakened, because it has been crucial in developing a sequential approach to housing developmentbrownfield first; greenfield laterand we should try to strengthen it.
	The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) discussed PPG7. Although PPG7 was brought in to revive the rural economy, it is used like a blunderbuss. It should not be used in metropolitan districtsit was used to introduce agricultural activity on the doorstep of one of the biggest conurbations in Leeds. In that case, a factory was built on the green belt in my constituency solely to promote agricultural or rural revival. That was totally inappropriate, and I hope that we examine that point in the future. 
	Village design statements are very popular in my constituency, and they should be given even greater weight in the planning process. I should especially like to mention the residents of Bardsey, who spent vast amounts of time developing their village design statement and finished up losing a big battle on mobile phone masts.

Matthew Green: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the Countryside Agency has just stopped giving grants to communities to produce village design statements as part of the vital villages scheme? I hope that he regrets that as much as I do.

Colin Burgon: I do regret it, although I welcome the fact that we introduced the policy. Perhaps it will change. However, I do not want to be like the Liberals by facing both ways at once.
	Another aspect of urban sprawl is that when driving on motorways or major roads, one sees redundant trailers and lorries parked in fields with huge advertising signs on them. That adds massive clutter to the countryside, but nobody ever seems able to do anything about it. It is not only local firms that put them there, but multinationals such as IKEA and McDonalds.
	We all tramp round the streets delivering leafletsat least, some of us do; some people pay to have it doneand we can see that something that makes a real difference to the feel of an estate is the presence of trees. Our planning legislation should enforce the provision of trees in public spaces. There is nothing like trees for breaking up the straight lines of buildings and giving variety and colour to an area, as well as for promoting wildlife.
	I hope that the Government will continue to encourage bringing life back to our cities. A classic example is the great city of Leeds. Twenty years ago, one would steer clear of the city centre, especially on a Saturday night; now, it is absolutely packed with people. It is a lively place and people are living in it. We should do more to encourage that, because the more people live in the centre, the more pressure is relieved on the edges in constituencies like mine.
	We should continue to have tight planning regulation. I do not want us ever to be like the countries with poor planning regimes that lead to hideous sprawl and inappropriate developments, which many of our constituents see when they travel. I could mention several countries, but I do not want to fall out with them, because they might not allow me to visit them in future.
	Thanks to this Labour Government, the whole basis of urban and rural land use policy is far more coherent and based on sound principles. Now that we have got coherence back into the system, our job is to continue to move forward.

Andrew Mitchell: Certain aspects of this debate are of great and grave importance to my constituents. In Sutton Coldfield, we are groaning under the weight of vexatious and unwanted development proposals. We have made some progress over the past year, but it is no thanks to the Government. I am pleased that the Minister for Housing and Planning and the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), are on the Front Bench today, because they both have some understanding of the problems. Indeed, on the day that the Minister was promoted, he responded to my Adjournment debate on a similar subject. He recently agreed to meet me and a senior councillor from Sutton Coldfield to discuss the issues. I have also indulged in a great deal of correspondence with the Under-Secretary, some of which is ongoing.
	I want to make three specific points in supporting the motion ably proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes). Overall, my key point is that far too few decision-making powers are in the hands of the local community and that the planning system is slanted too much in favour of developers. We have to rectify that situation in the interests of our constituents.
	First, brownfield development is taking place in areas where no one expected or intended that it should.
	There is a great deal of difference between wasted and undeveloped industrial land, which needs to be cleaned up and returned to productive use, and the sort of back gardens about which the hon. Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) and I exchanged views a moment ago. The confusion between infill in the back gardens of houses and industrial development land causes enormous upset and great vexation to people who live in my constituency and similar communities. We all know what brownfield development is meant to be, but the concept has been greatly abused through lack of a clear interpretation.
	Secondly, communities, through local authorities, must have more power in decision making. It is proposed that three bungalows on Little Sutton lane in a lovely part of Sutton Coldfield be demolished to make way for a large number of flats. Everyone opposes that. The three local councillors and I are opposed to it and up to 1,000 people who live in the area have said that they do not want the development. However, the developers are back after being turned down. They can take informal advice from the planners and they threaten to appeal. My constituents are defeated. We cannot match the way in which developers push through proposals, using the well-known weapon on appeal of a slick London barrister. The developers bank the money and move on, and my constituents are left with the disruption and misery caused by a process that should not lead to the results that often ensue.
	Once one or two such developments occur in an area, people wake up one morning and find that its character has completely changed. The effect of great density in an area such as my constituency on doctors' surgeries, schools, parking, roads and so on is incremental and immense. We do not oppose the Government's point about the need to build houses or the density arrangements. However, in a city such as Birmingham, those houses must be built in the right area and the authority must be able, under the law, to discriminate between an appropriate and an inappropriate area.
	In my constituency, developers presented a proposal for Brassington avenue, which is in the heart of Sutton Coldfield. Although many of us welcomed the original proposal, as soon as that welcome for good sense about density was made public, the developers upped the number of flats that they wanted to build and lost the sympathy of the area and the people who had initially examined the proposal and genuinely believed that it might prove appropriate.
	Thirdly, I set the Government a test of their sincerity about the green belt. Peddimore will be a familiar name to the Under-Secretary. It is a site that was removed from the green belt under my predecessor, Lord Fowler, and made a site of regional significance in the west midlands. That was done on the ground of prospective enormous inward investment by the electronics industry. However, it never materialised. The result of a unitary development plan inquiry was devastating. The inspector not only found in favour of the arguments that I and others in my constituency presented and dismissed the council's argument, but made it clear that the council had not even assembled a proper argument.
	The Labour council in Birmingham is trying to subvert the inspector's ruling through the draft regional plan and ask the Under-Secretary and the Department to leave Peddimore as a site of a regional significance outside the green belt. The test for the Under-Secretary and the Department is to listen to what all those people who attended the inquiry said. Let the Under-Secretary hear the authentic voices of local communities speaking for the areas where they live and return Peddimore to the green belt. There is no user for the site and no case for its being out of the green belt. Alternative, much better sites exist and there is a damning case against its current status. I urge the Under-Secretary to examine the evidence carefully and ensure that Peddimore goes back into the green belt.
	I have been relatively brief about an enormously important subject in Sutton Coldfield. We must ensure that local communities have a much better defence than currently exists. I detect some sympathy for those views from the Under-Secretary. I hope that she will redouble her efforts to find ways of ensuring that the planning system can provide that defence to local communities, which are far too exposed.

Kelvin Hopkins: First, may I pay a compliment to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning? Unfortunately, I was unable to be present for the first part of his speech, which I shall read with great interest in tomorrow's Hansard, but the latter part I entirely agreed with. He has a great grasp of the important issues we are discussing today.
	I heard all the speeches from the other Front-Bench spokespersons, and I take issue particularly with the Liberal Democrat, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), who, on the one hand, said that planning should not be too centralised and, on the other, that people do not want to live in silos. Unfortunately, local authorities, to some extent, are silos. They can deal only with matters within their boundaries. Central Government must have a role

Matthew Green: How much?

Kelvin Hopkins: I have nothing against central Government; indeed, I strongly support them and their planning role. They need enough power to do the job properly. My constituency of Luton, North has a desperate housing shortage. We are running out of brownfield sites and we are doing our best to put as much housing as is reasonably possible within the borough boundaries, but we need to expand to house people. We are talking about people on the council house waiting list, not those in large houses. They are the ones who need homes; we need social housing.
	The word planning greatly appeals to me. It has a socialist flavour of which I entirely approve. Of course, the great advance was made by the post-war Labour Government and the Silkin Act, and we owe them a debt. I am fully in favour of planningsensible planningand indeed a central role. Only central Government can solve the problems we have in Luton.
	Like many other areas in the south-east, Luton has a serious housing problem. There is a shortage of housing, as well as a shortage of affordable housing, and we need more council housing in particular. There is a similar situation in many other areas. We need to build reasonably near to Luton, but we also have to build in other local authority areas. I have discussed these matters with the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), in whose constituency some of the new houses will undoubtedly be built. Some of my constituents may finish up living in his constituency, over time. [Interruption.] They are fine people and I want them to be properly housed in decent homes, wherever they live.
	Clearly, planning law is designed to have a negative effectto prevent development where it is inappropriatebut it also ought to have a positive aspect so that it promotes development where it is appropriate. To the north of my constituency, there are areas of outstanding natural beauty, sites of special scientific interest and areas that should not be built on, but there is also pretty average farm land that is entirely appropriate for new housing.

Patrick Hall: My hon. Friend's use of the word positive brings me to my feet, and I very much agree with him on that. Does he agree that, rather than approaching these matters involving housing development and the sustainable communities plan as a threat and something with which to generate fears, which is what the Conservative motion seeks to do, we can be positive and confident about the many interrelated social, economic and environmental benefits that will flow from a strategic look at those issues and which will help society?

Kelvin Hopkins: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and thank him for his intervention. If we are to have more housing, the logical place to build it is around existing large towns, especially towns such as Luton, which are below a critical mass at which they can become more interesting. We have heard about the splendid city of Leeds, which can sustain theatres. I was going to say that it can sustain a successful football club, but that would have been unfortunate.
	Nevertheless, big cities can sustain much more interesting facilities than medium-sized and larger towns such as Luton. Luton and Dunstable, together as a conurbation, cannot yet sustain facilities of the kind that I want in our area. I look forward to the expansion of our conurbation to such a size that it reaches the critical mass at which we will be able to have a big, successful football club, an Olympic-sized swimming pool and a professional theatre.
	That is what I am looking for, and I like to think that my constituents agree that Luton could become an even more exciting place if it was larger and we also had decent homes for our people.
	There is much to be said for the Government's plans, and I entirely agree with their approach.
	A point I have made to local authorities in my area, to people who live there and to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is that we should build the benefits into new housing developments. Small spinneys and woodland areas could be made into green corridors forming a link with the existing conurbation. That would make life much more interesting for everyone in both places, and would preserve what is best in the rural element of urban areas. One of the great successes of planning is our preservation of green areas in towns. Certainly there are some nice parks in Luton, and we want to preserve them.

John Horam: I entirely agree that we should build an element of greenness into new developments. The problem is that in areas such as the one mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) and my own constituency, gardens are being filled in, and the concentration on new housing is eliminating the rural, green aspect that we value so much.

Kelvin Hopkins: Local authorities in my area strongly agree that green areas should be preserved and green corridors created.
	I have not much time left. I want to make one or two important points. In recent months I have had some conversations with house builders. I asked them whether they were interested in building on brownfield sites; no, they were not. Were they interested in building social housing? No, they were not. Were they interested in contracting to build for local authorities or housing associations? No, they were not. What they were interested in was building on greenfield sites where they can get the development value and build expensive executive homes.
	The Government must intervene to ensure that that does not happen. There must be a much greater role for the state at local and national level to ensure that we build the houses that are needed, not those designed to bring big profits to builders. If that means a degree of subsidy to reinvent and recreate the great local authority housing of the past, which housed so many of my friends when I was young, so be it. I am a strong supporter of good local authority housing development, and I believe that it must have a major role in the future.
	We must stop the house builders, the developers and the free marketeers ruining our countryside and making it a place where many of my constituents will never be able to find houses because they will be unable to buy, and where a small minority of people will live in large executive homes. Low-density housing will do nothing to introduce some sort of equality and social justice.
	There are many more points that I would like to make, but perhaps that will suffice for now. I strongly support the Government's position, and will vote against what the Conservatives have proposed.

Sydney Chapman: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins). Given the limited time, I hope he will excuse me if I do not pick up all his points.
	In an intervention on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), I pointed out that over the last 25 years the population of our country had increased by 4 million, but so had the number of households. That reveals a dramatic change in our country's demography. Let me give one or two more statistics. The number of lone-parent families has doubled in the last 35 years. The number of single-person households is now 30 per cent. of the total. Conversely, the number of households consisting of married couples and childrenwhat we regard as the typical British family of yesteryearhas fallen from 33 per cent. of the total to 20 per cent. I mention those figures because it is certain that whatever problems we may have in meeting the housing aspirations of the people of our country in the next few years, the task will become immeasurably more difficult.
	Let us also remember two other factors. First, in the last 25 years, car ownership has increased from 14 million to 27 million; and, secondly, we are becoming an ageing population. That has occurred not only because we are living longerdue more to medical science than to the Government, though I sometimes doubt whether Government Members realise itbut because of the falling birth rate. We need more dwelling units and, apparently, smaller homes.
	I do not believe that there is any all-embracing, single, simple solution. We need different approaches and different policies for different areas. I should like briefly to outline my seven-point policy.
	First, green belt policies have been the undoubted success of post-war planning policy. I believe that they should be inviolable and that Governments should support them. On the one hand, they have prevented towns joining each other, and on the other, they have prevented ever-increasing sizes of conurbations.
	Secondly, we should place even greater emphasis on the use of brownfield sites. One problem is that so many of them are contaminated, making it more expensive to prepare the land for housing. Those sites also tend to be based in areas where building is more expensive than elsewhere. The Government have made changes to section 106 agreements, whereby in return for certain planning permissions being granted, the developers make contributions for the benefit of the community. I believe that the revenues from section 106 agreements should be put into helping developers with the extra expense of developing brownfield sites.
	Thirdly, it is possible for us to be much more imaginative. In the old days, we used to think in terms of high-density development and building multi-storey blocks of flats in cities and large towns. However, the ingenuity of architects and planners now suggests that it is possible to have higher-density, low-level development. I would like to see the Government choosing sites in our great cities and very large towns and holding a competition for the design and layout of high-density development. The high standards of health and security that we demand would have to be met and defensible spaces, to use the modern jargon, provided for people to live in. The winning schemes should be built. After people were invited to assess them, they could readily be sold off at a considerable profit.
	Fourthly, we need a firmer policy to protect our pleasant suburbs. Too many impersonal blocks of flats have been allowed to replace pleasant houses, and too much unrelieved tarmacadaming for off-street parking has been allowed to replace gardens. Providing more places for cars as well as building more flats has been a problem.
	Fifthly, we need to encourage the conversion of more existing non-domestic buildingswarehouses, old mills and so forthinto providing homes. Interestingly, in my part of the country, the value of homes is higher than the value of offices. Some suitable offices could be transformed to become housing stock.
	Sixthly, we must have minimum development on greenfield sites. I am not na-ve enough to suppose that no such development will take place, but it should be a last resort and occur only when it can be shown that there are no more suitable brownfield sites in the area. It should be possible, on a village-by-village basis, to look at smaller communities and settlements to see whether sensible development could make them more viable. That could mean that the local sub-post office does not have to close and that a bobby on the beat and a doctor could be based there locally. A village could thus be transformed into a more economically and socially viable unit.
	My seventh point is that we need a more imaginative policy to reverse our declining urban areas, particularly in the north.
	Finally, the motor vehicle has changed the way in which we live as well as having a profound effect on our town planning. Why do we not earmark areas in some big cities in which people may live, provided they do not own a vehicle when that is their choice? We might be surprised to find that many people, especially those in our great cities, would like the option of not having a car, yet being able to live in a quieter environment. It is key to making our inner cities and town centres decent, safe and attractive places once again. We need enthusiasm, imagination and commitment; and would it not be wonderful if we could get all-party agreement on how to go ahead and achieve that?

Mark Hoban: I want to focus on my constituency because it reflects many points made by hon. Members, especially those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) in the context of his constituency. Fareham's population has expanded significantly. In 1961, 58,000 people lived in the borough of Fareham and by 2001 the figure had grown to 108,000. Most of the development has taken place in the west of my constituency, and in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990sespeciallyit was well planned and environmentally friendly. However, brownfield sites are now being used to intensify development, especially in the western part of Fareham.
	Nursing homes have closed and have been replaced by large blocks of flats. A block called Paxton court with 24 two-bedroom flats is being built to replace only three bungalows on Locks road in my constituency. Last week, there was a planning application to build 53 flats in five blocks, with car parking and access, on the site of only two or three houses in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield identified the problem of more intense development taking place in already well developed areas. The pressure on such sites is continuing not only in the west of my constituency, but in other parts, because the council is required to build more houses to meet the Government's planning targets.
	It was interesting to note that the Minister for Housing and Planning referred to one of the last brownfield sites in Fareham. Some 1,650 hectares of land have been transferred from the ownership of the Department of Health to that of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. It is a former hospital site, and although part of it has been developed as a hospital, much of it consists of green fields. I will be intrigued to find out whether one of the last remaining green areas in the west of my constituency will remain as a place where children can play, or whether the fields will be built upon under the stewardship of that Department.
	Why is there such an intensity of development in my constituency? Hon. Members referred to PPG3 and its guidance on population densities. The increase in the density of housing to 30 to 50 dwellings per hectare is leading to more intense developments on relatively small plots of land, so 24 flats are being built on the site of three bungalows and their gardens. More flats are being crammed into such areas.
	The classification of brownfield sites to include residential homes must be examined. The Government's adviser on density said:
	They made very large gardens in the 1930s and it is possible to sub-divide the plots with alleys and paths to introduce denser development.
	Such an increase in population density is occurring in my constituency, and the Government are keen for that to happen.
	An issue that arises from density of development and the focus on brownfield sites is the change of areas' characters. Park Gate, which is in my constituency, is a mixed residential, office and light-industrial area.
	However, the demand for brownfield sites for housing makes it very attractive for businesses to close down and sell their land, or to convert light industrial and commercial premises for the purpose.
	That is what is happening, but there is no debate in the local community about the nature of the area. People who may be able to walk to work now will be forced by the change in use to drive to work. That will put pressure on the already crowded roads in the west of my constituency.
	The increase in the density of development also places pressure on the existing infrastructure. I return to the example of Paxton court, where 24 flats have replaced three bungalows. The amount of traffic on the roads will be between six and eight times greater as a consequence of such intense development of so-called brownfield sites, but the transport infrastructure in the areaboth the local main roads and the M27is already suffering a great deal of pressure from existing developments. Increasing the intensity of residential development and using more brownfield sites will add to the pressure on the transport infrastructure.
	The Government have held no end of inquiries and reports. The south coast multimodal study was the most recent, but there is now to be a further study of transport needs in south-east Hampshire. Those inquiries merely put off the decisions that need to be made if the transport infrastructure is to be improved in my part of the county.
	The increase in intensity of development has not increased the stock of affordable housing available for the doctors, nurses and teachers needed to cater to the needs of the growing local population. In part, that is because the price of the sites being used has been bid upthe pressure to develop on brownfield land has meant that developers have to pay higher prices for land. Those increases have been passed on to the people who buy the flats.
	Flagstaff House is a development on the site of a former nursing home. A one-bedroom flat there costs 150,000six times the average earnings in Fareham. The increase in housing density does not equate to an increase in affordable housing to meet the needs of key workers who might wish to live in the area.
	The intensity of development and the strains being placed on the infrastructure mean that there is much opposition in the local community to the impact of the planning process. People are starting to feel disfranchised from the process, and to believe that the local council is almost powerless when faced with central Government planning guidelines. If we are to restore confidence in the integrity and transparency of the planning process, we must ensure that local people are able, through their local councillors, to influence more of the decisions that are taken about the future of their communities.
	That is not happening at the moment. It is important that we reconnect people with the planning process. People in Fareham are asking for a fairer deal.

Robert Syms: I begin by declaring my entry in the Register of Members' Interests, as I have an interest in a family property and building company. I also want to apologise to those Back-Bench Members of all parties who have not been able to contribute to the debate. I know that they will be frustrated, but it is inevitable that Front-Bench speakers will want to explain what they say in attack or defence, and that they will take many interventions.
	The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) suggested that, in future, it might be appropriate for the House to spend more time debating policy planning statements. I agree, as planning is a major issue in many constituencies. Many constituents are affected by it, yet most policy planning statements are not discussed here before they go out to local authorities for consultation. I think that the usual channels should consider whether those statements should be discussed more fully in Parliament, both when they are introduced and later, when we can see how they affect the communities that we represent.
	Earlier, there was a little spat about rural planning, when it was clear that there were differences of opinion. We should spend more time in the Chamber on such matters, as that may be the best way of securing a holistic view from Members of Parliament.
	In this short debate, we have heard some very good contributions. The hon. Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) talked about the big conversation and being the voice of the north. His main concern was ensuring that the communities he represents were not joined up to the urban sprawl of the city of Leeds, which takes in many rural and semi-rural areas. We heard a thoughtful speech from the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), who glowed when he mentioned the word socialism. He wanted to make Luton an even more exciting place than it is at the moment, and strongly defended the Government's policies.
	We heard a traditional and thoughtful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman), who made seven pointsunlike President Wilson, who had 14 points. It would be worth the while of the Minister for Housing and Planning to read those pointshe was not in his place when my hon. Friend spokebecause they included some very good ideas for the future direction of development. We also heard some good contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) and for Fareham (Mr. Hoban).
	This debate is about town cramming and housing density. The Minister laid great emphasis on the fact that he wanted to increase density and there are certain parts of the country where higher density development is appropriate. In my own constituency, there are one or two former industrial sites near the quay and the former port that could be developed at higher density, and could include more affordable housing. However, PPG3 and the revisions of it in March 2000 are having an unintended consequence. Many parts of my constituency contain family homes with large gardens. What happens is that developers pick streets that used to be middle class, family areas, they buy up two or three homes together or make a large offer to one resident, and then they put in an application for high-density development. As Poole is a seaside resort, the applications tend to be for flats. After the developers get one property, they try to get others, so often multiple applications are made. As a result, the communities feel disfranchised and frustrated, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham said.
	The consequence, as property after property is turned into flats, is that all the people who protested that they did not want the character of the area to change decide to sell up and move out. That means that the essential nature of the area changes. An aerial photograph of Poole would show mainly trees and gardens, but we are gradually losing trees and gardens and in their place we have higher density development. However, that development is not in affordable housing, but in expensive flats, many of them second homes.
	We are losing family homes, trees and large gardens, so the nature of my constituency is changing. That theme is also apparent in Meriden, Sutton Coldfield, Fareham and some of the leafier suburbs of London. It perhaps affects Conservative Members more, because of the nature of the constituencies that we represent. In the past two general elections, the Conservative party was hard hit and the leafier suburbs and rural areas are just about the only ones where we have some representation. In any case, high house prices and the Government's pushing of higher density development through PPG3 have combined in a pincer movement on my constituents.
	Planning committees are pushed, by PPG3, to allow higher density developments in the face of great opposition, and they are now demoralised and upset. The planning department in Poole has told me that the development control officers in the Sandbanks, Canford Cliffs and Parkstone areas have to be rotatedlike officers on the Russian frontbecause of the stress caused by residents telephoning and e-mailing when an application causes great concern.
	That is a feature of Britain. It is certainly a feature of the suburbs and it is changing the essential character of our towns. That is why there is legitimate concern about how PPG3 is implemented.
	We all believe in some degree of national guidance, but I wonder whether there is a way in which one could be more specific about what is and is not appropriate for high density in a local area. My party believes that more of these decisions should be made locally. The only way to sort out the detail and to decide what is and is not appropriate for development is to give more powers to local authorities.
	Perhaps areas should be designated as low-density areas in a particular borough or urban area to save its essential character. As it is, people tend to make areas of a borough conservation areas where that is not necessarily appropriate, because they feel that may be a means to ensure that density levels are lower.
	Essentially, that is the charge that we make against the Government. Statistics and figures are bandied across the Chamber, but much brownfield development is on urban land that was a garden or a drive, or had been previously the site of a bungalow, now demolished. That is our legitimate concern. When my constituents hear that the Government, in their push for higher density, are commissioning a further study from Cambridge university's Martin Centre for Architectural and Urban Studies, which is spending 1.75 million to look at even more ways to encourage density in suburbs, their natural reaction is to think, Goodness, there will be more pressure on us to increase density where it may not be particularly appropriate.
	That is why the Opposition are on the attack today. Our communities feel that they are under pressure and are being threatened. Many of our citizens feel angry and disenfranchised. The consequence of that in the long term is not good for politicians. When planning committees, residents and even MPs feel that they cannot have any impact on what goes on in communities, and that national circulars, Government inspectors and regional officers have more impact on their towns, we are in great difficulty.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) covered many issues, and I will not repeat a lot of what he said, but there is concern about how the sustainable communities plan will impact on some areas of the south. Although building over green fields is something that one has to do, the Government have planitisthey seem to have a plan for everything, largely by extrapolating and assuming that the trends will continue, making the situation in many of the areas under great pressure rather worse.
	The other day, I was talking to the leader of Kent county council. He says that quite a lot of land there is appropriate for housing, but that there is not the infrastructure

Keith Hill: We are spending 446 million on infrastructure in the gateway.

Robert Syms: The Minister says that, but Kent says that the Government are not being so proactive in establishing that infrastructure. We must have balancewe must have infrastructure as well as development. Many people in our communities are concerned that the two do not go togetherpeople get the development first, with all the downside and the difficulties, but they do not get the infrastructure later.
	The Campaign to Protect Rural England, for example, is concerned about the sustainable communities plan. It says:
	Growth on this scale could devastate the countryside in a region already under severe pressure. And it could further damage declining urban areas which desperately need investment and attentionnot just elsewhere in the region but right across the country.
	The south-east is under great pressure. The Government need to think again. The Thames gateway makes sense but some of the other plans are rather too ambitious.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings made a compelling point on the green belt, which is a great legacy of the Conservative Government of 1955Duncan Sandys introduced it. It was meant to save land for the long term. It was not meant to be a temporary thing that could be moved at the will of a Government when people felt that it was no longer relevant. At the moment, green belt is being built on where there is already development pressure and green belt is being added where there is no pressure. Doncaster may be a lovely place but I do not think that it faces the same pressures as areas in the south-east.
	That is an issue of real concern.
	My hon. Friend made powerful points about Barker. The report did not take the latest census material into account: there are 900,000 fewer people in the UK and 720,000 empty homes, 300,000 of which are in London. There is a very good argument for looking into the management of our housing stock and freeing up that stock before we build on green fields across the country.
	There is legitimate anxiety about the changes in our communities. I understand the Government's concerns about affordable housing and the need to increase density in certain areas, but in fact what is happening is that many leafy suburbs, and some rural areas, are undergoing substantial change. That is causing great concern to our constituents and the problem must be dealt with; otherwise the anger that already exists will grow. We need a more flexible approach than the Government have shown so far.
	I hope that my colleagues support our motion, because the House should make clear its view of the Government's policy.

Yvette Cooper: We have had an interesting debate. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) raised issues about planning policy guidance. He may have heard the Deputy Prime Minister on the radio this morning; my right hon. Friend made it clear that we are not changing the approach to out-of-town developments. Nor does the draft planning guidance mean reducing support for affordable housing in rural areas: quite the reverse.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) described the value and importance of the millennium village in his constituency. As his neighbour, I can testify to the importance of that programme, which is regenerating the coalfields area with a new approach to mixed development and the building of mixed, sustainable communities.
	The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) raised concerns about his constituency, many involving planning cases, on which, as he knows, I cannot comment. I shall deal later on with some of the broader issues that he raised.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) set out clearly the pressures on housing in his constituency. He made a powerful case about the need for more development and housing in the south-east.
	The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) made some important points, many of which I agree with, about the value of good design and the potential for city centre redevelopment. The hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) complained about development and greater density, while simultaneously complaining about affordability in his constituency. That very much epitomises the issues we face in London and the south-east.
	I want to pick up some of the points made by the hon. Members for Poole (Mr. Syms) and for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), and will start with the issues raised about the green belt. Opposition Members have professed grave concern for the green belt, yet figures published by the previous Conservative Government showed that, in the 1980s and the 1990s, they slashed the green belt. The Labour Government have already increased the amount of green belt and we have made it clear that we need to protect the overall level of green belt in every region. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out earlier today, that is a darn sight better than the Conservative party managed to do.
	As Opposition Members know, we have also increased the proportion of new houses built on brownfield sites. So far, the Thames gateway scheme has involved more than 80 per cent. brownfield development, with a density of 37 dwellings per hectare. That substantial brownfield development is a good thing.
	The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said that we should go back on the sustainable communities plan and that he does not support the four growth areas. I fear that is yet another example of Conservative Front-Bench Members not talking to each other, because what did the shadow Chancellor tell the Medway Messenger last week? On a visit to the Thames gateway, the right hon. Gentleman said:
	We should be proud when we carry forward major schemes like this.
	The Government are indeed proud to be taking forward the Thames gateway development to provide much-needed homes for people who live in London and the south-east.
	Let me deal with gardens. It is Chelsea flower show week so it is a good time to champion gardens. I point out to Opposition Members that nothing has changed for Britain's gardens. The definition of previously developed land has not changed. In 1975, under the category Residential, the national land use classification included
	houses, flats, sheltered accommodation where residences have separate front entrances and adjoining garages, gardens, estate roads and pathways.
	That definition was used by Conservative Governments for 18 years, and it included gardens.
	The figures on the proportion of brownfield development produced by redeveloping existing residential areasknocking down houses and rebuildinghas remained broadly unchanged for many years.
	The hon. Member for Poole made slightly more thoughtful points about increasing density undermining the character of certain areas, but planning policy statement 3 and PPS1 strongly stress the importance of design. Local planning authorities, frankly, should take a much more assertive approach to the quality of developments, the quality of life in an area and design issues. Greater density does not necessarily produce a decline in the quality of lifequite the reverse.
	There is a fundamental problem with the Conservative party's position on planning. The hon. Member for Ludlow was right. The Conservatives do not want to build houses in the green belt. They do not want to build houses as infill. They do not want to build them in the countryside. They do not want to build them in towns. They do not want to build them anywhere. They say that we should put more houses on surplus employment land. We agree. That is why we are changing the guidance, but that will not solve the problemall the jobs that we are creating have to go somewhere, too. Admittedly, if the Tories got back to office and returned to their boom-and-bust approach, they might create rather more surplus employment land, but I presume that that is not the strategy that they had in mind.
	The last time that we had an Opposition day debate on housing, I said that the Conservatives did not have a grasp of the figures and that their sums did not add up. They wanted to build more affordable houses and cut the housing budget by 400 million. Their sums are bad enough, but it seems that their spatial reasoning is pretty ropey, too. Last time, I pointed out that houses cost money, that they do not grow on trees and that they do not fall from the skies. Now, I have to point out that houses take up space. They have to be built somewhere. They cannot be built in the sky or in trees.
	The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said that he wanted incremental, gentle development. He was presumably referring to the low levels of building that we saw for too many years. That will simply not provide the homes that we needthe homes that he said that he wanted to provide to anchor people for life's journey. The Conservatives have a strange position. They admit that there are problems with affordable housing and rising house prices, but they then seem to go into complete denial about the relationship between housing prices, housing demand and housing supply. The Tory economic record in practice was abysmal, but at least they used to manage the rhetoric of supply and demand. Somewhere in their years in opposition, they seem to have ditched even any pretence of economic analysis, to fall back on good old nimbyism instead.
	The analysis in the Kate Barker report was very clear on the relationship between housing prices and supply. An overwhelming array of evidence and analysis shows the need for more homes to be built. Various figures have been quoted, and one published assessment stated that housing need would grow by an extra 170,000 every year, owing to household growth. What document did that come from? It was not from the Barker review or the sustainable communities plan, but from the Green Paper on housing growth, published in 1996, by Tory Ministers. In 1996, they thought that household growth would be 170,000 a year. Now, they think that there will be no household growth at all. In 1996, the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), wrote in his foreword to the Green Paper:
	So let us not take refuge in the fond hope that all this will not actually happen.
	Household growth is already happening. Household supply has fallen too far. We need more homes. The Tories should face up to facts and support the development of sustainable communities. Frankly, if they had done that 20 years ago, we might be in better shape right now.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:
	The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 321.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):
	The House divided: Ayes 299, Noes 164.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Madam Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House applauds the Government for maintaining the amount of Green Belt in England and its pledge to maintain or increase the amount of Green Belt; notes that development of previously developed sites for housing has a crucial role in meeting local needs for housing in the Green Belt and welcomes the Government's crackdown on urban sprawl, by adopting a sequential approach to the release of land and planning growth where it is needed; supports its proactive approach in improving the sustainability of rural communities; applauds the Government's success in achieving its previously developed land target early and increasing average densities of new development, which have helped to take the pressure off green fields; applauds the Government for introducing new planning policies in PPG17 to protect open spaces of value to the local community; and praises the Government for introducing the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to improve the speed and quality of decision making and place sustainability at the heart of the planning system, and for its new emphasis on community involvement, ensuring local people's views are an integral part of the plan making process.

Andrew Stunell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to raise the issue of ballot papers in the European and local government elections in the Hazel Grove constituency. Unlike other hon. Members, who have come to the House to say that their constituents have not received ballot papers, I have come to the House to say that my constituents have received ballot papers and that they have been issued with the wrong ones. In two polling districts of the Bredbury and Woodley ward in my constituency, electors have received ballot papers containing forms for the local government elections in the Edgeley and Cheadle Heath ward, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey).
	Madam Deputy Speaker, you will appreciate that that is causing grave confusion to electors in not only my constituency but that of the hon. Member for Stockport. Have you received representations from Department for Constitutional Affairs Ministers that they want to come to the House to explain what will happen next? If not, will you use your good offices to encourage them to do so at the earliest possible moment?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have not received any such request from the Department for Constitutional Affairs. The matter raised by the hon. Gentleman is not a point of order for the Chair, but it is of serious concern, and I hope that those on the Treasury Bench will note what he has said.

Oliver Heald: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, in the light of your ruling that you have not received such notice, if the position remains the same tomorrow, will it be in order for the procedures of the House to be used to make a request to Mr. Speaker for the relevant Minister to come to this House and answer a question about the matter?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that all hon. Members are free to submit such a request to Mr. Speaker for his consideration.

Nicholas Winterton: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not questioning your ruling, but this House must be concerned about people being disfranchised. What is happening in the Stockport metropolitan area, Cheshire and other areas of the north-west

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I will not allow the matter to develop into a debate. I have answered the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell).

David Heath: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Is this on a different matter, Mr. Heath?

David Heath: It is a related matter, but not the same matter. I seek your guidance because it is important for hon. Members to be aware of the procedures of the House given the extraordinary chaos that is developing across the whole of the north of England with regard to postal ballots.
	If a request to the Speaker's Office is placed this evening as a matter of urgency, will it be considered tomorrow morningif no opportunity arises this evening for a Minister to come to this Houseso that the Minister can come to make a statement on a matter that most of us are extremely concerned about?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I genuinely understand the concern of hon. Members on such an important matter. I therefore suggest that they make their representations to the Speaker's Office as soon as they wish.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,
	That
	(a) the matter of the Report of the Richard Commission be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration;
	(b) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Tuesday 6th July at twenty-five minutes past Nine o'clock and between Two o'clock and half-past Four o'clock to consider the matter of the Report of the Richard Commission, under Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales)).[Derek Twigg.]

PETITIONS
	  
	Post Office Closures

Bob Spink: My constituency, like many others, has suffered from post office closures. We recently had three post offices closed, not to be replaced, and a further three post office closures are now threatened. I wish to present two petitionsone to save the Benfleet high road post office and one to save the Victoria corner post office in Hadleigh. I hope to speak about those tomorrow if I manage to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. The first petition reads:
	To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled.
	The Humble Petition of Cllr Dave Cross, Cllr Tom Skipp and others of like disposition sheweth
	That there is great public concern caused by the proposal to close the Post Office in the High Road Benfleet which will damage our shopping area and threatens the very fabric of our community, hurting vulnerable people the most and that this closure, coming after so many other Post Office closures, is insensitive.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House shall implore the Government to change its policies on Post Office closures and on the payment of benefits and pensions and the provision of full banking services so that Post Offices are made more viable and retained.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
	To lie upon the Table.
	The second petition relates to the Victoria corner post office. It states:
	To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled.
	The Humble Petition of Miss Elizabeth Govier, Cllr Beverley Egan and others sheweth
	That there is considerable concern over the proposal to close the Post Office at Victoria Corner, Kiln Road, which serves people from Thundersley and Hadleigh and Benfleet, and that this closure would damage our shopping area and threatens the fabric of our society and community, hurting vulnerable people the most, particularly in the light of so many other recent Post Office closures.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House shall urge the Government to change its policies on Post Office closures and on the payment of benefits and pensions and the provision of full banking services so that Post Offices are made more viable and retained.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
	To lie upon the Table.

NORTHERN CYPRUS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Derek Twigg.]

Ann Winterton: When Cyprus is debated in this House, we usually hear the Greek Cypriot point of view, but the Turkish Cypriot case is rarely heard. I am therefore grateful for this opportunity to redress the balance.
	The international community asked for the self-determination of the two peoples of Cyprus on the future of the island and the decision has now been made. The Annan plan, on which the two peoples of Cyprus voted on 24 April, was presented to the world by the United Nations, the European Union, the Americans and the British as fair to both sides. It gave neither side as much as they wanted. On 16 April, the Secretary of State of the United States described it as the end of the process. He said:
	There is no Plan B . . . There is nothing else coming along.
	Kofi Annan himself said:
	There is no other plan out therethis is it.
	The two peoples of Cyprus accepted these statements in good faith and voted accordingly.
	Turkish Cypriot voters had serious doubts about whether the Annan plan would secure their physical, economic and cultural future in the island, but they were nevertheless willing to give it a chance. The Greek Cypriots were not.
	Likewise, Turkey had serious doubts about whether the plan would create a sustainable settlement or cause instability and conflict, as proved to be the case with the 1960 settlement. Nevertheless, the Government of Turkey worked hard with the Turkish Cypriots, the United Nations and Greece to negotiate the Annan plan and pledged to do whatever was required to support it. No fair-minded observer could have expected Turkey or the Turkish Cypriots to do more.
	European Commissioners Verheugen and Patten said on 21 April that they felt cheated by the Greek Cypriots. Indeed, Commissioner Verheugen said:
	I feel taken for a ride by the Cypriot Government.
	How much more cheated do the Turkish Cypriots feel? For more than 40 years, they have been subjected to physical and economic deprivation and debilitating uncertainty and it is time to put an end to that. It is simply not fair to the Turkish Cypriot people to expect them to endure that hardship any longer and there must be no more attempts to force unwilling parties together. Nor is it fair to penalise Turkey a moment longer in respect of Cyprus.
	The European Union said that Turkish Cypriots could not be left out in the cold if the Greek Cypriots voted no and the former have therefore called on the EU and the international community to lift the restrictions to which they are subjected and give them financial assistance to repair the damage done to their economy by those 40 years of restrictions.
	Sympathetic words are not enough and specific action must be taken to lift the restrictions without further delay. Adjustments to the restrictions and the modest financial assistance promised so far is simply not enough. In particular, it is wrong to expect the Turkish Cypriots to accept financial aid channelled through the Greek Cypriot Administration. Direct air and shipping services to and from Northern Cyprus must be permitted without further delay and Turkish Cypriot students must have access to education here at the same cost as Greek Cypriot students. Turkish Cypriots should not be expected to export their goods through the territory controlled by the Greek Cypriots and EU inspectors could be based in Northern Cyprus.
	The international community should also remove visa restrictions. When Greek Cypriots do not need visas, Turkish Cypriots should not need them. It is especially disgraceful that the elected leaders of the Turkish Cypriots should be told to get a visa before they can enter the United Kingdom, even on official business and I ask the Minister for an assurance that this insulting treatment will be stopped forthwith.
	The visit of our high commissioner to Prime Minister Talat's office was welcome but our Government should go further and invite President Denktash and Prime Minister Talat for a meeting with the Foreign Secretary. They should also upgrade our high commission office in the north, with senior UK staff actually living in the north. Relations with the Turkish Cypriot mission in London should also be upgraded to permit the same contact as the Greek Cypriots have.
	Some people believe that there would be something unfair or unjust in that. Others think a threat to international peace would remain. To explain why that is not the case, it is necessary to deal with the international perceptions of the reasons for the situation in Cyprus, which are so fundamentally mistaken.
	The Turkish Cypriots are aware that Greek Cypriots had to abandon their homes in 1974, but they did not wish to abandon their homes in 1958, 1963, 1967 or 1974, which they had to do for mutual defence. The Turkish Cypriots did nothing to deserve the violent attacks to which the Greek Cypriots subjected them in those years and which resulted in the death of so many of their men, women, and children, and the separation of the two peoples of Cyprus.
	The Turkish Cypriots did nothing to deserve expulsion from all their positions in the republic, of which they were co-founders, nor did they use their veto power unreasonably, as is so often alleged. The Turkish Cypriots were heavily outnumbered, had no modern weapons and Turkey was, in 1963, in no position to protect them.
	Our former Prime Minister, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, said in his memoirs that if the Greek Cypriot leadership could not treat the Turkish Cypriots as human beings, they were inviting the invasion and partition of the island. Those were prescient words. The Turkish Cypriots called on the guarantor powersGreece, Turkey and the United Kingdomfor help in 1964 and 1967, but none could or would put a stop to the actions of the Greek Cypriots.
	It is hard to believe that the United Nations allowed the Greek Cypriots to get away literally with murder and then rewarded them by treating their officials as the Government of Cyprus for the next 40 years. The Greek Cypriots sought to justify their position by reference to a so-called doctrine of necessity, but they had created the necessity themselves.
	On 12 March 1964, the British Government agreed with Turkey that the title Cyprus Government could mean only a Government who act with the concurrence of its Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot members. There has of course been no concurrence since 1963, but that essential point has been quietly forgotten.
	This is what the Foreign Affairs Committee found in 1987:
	When in July 1965 the Turkish Cypriot members of the House of Representatives sought to resume their seats they were told that they could do so only if they accepted the changes to the Constitution enacted in their absence.
	In other words, they could resume their seats if they agreed to fundamental constitutional changes to the great disadvantage of their people, imposed on them by force of arms.
	Accordingly, even if there had been any substance to Greek Cypriot claims that they were operating the Government alone of necessity because the Turkish Cypriots were leaving their places vacant, there can be no justification for that claim after July 1965.
	The Turkish Cypriots are willing to forgive the Greek Cypriots and to forget the past, but not while they continue their attempt to strangle the Turkish Cypriot economy by restrictions on trade, communications and sport and continue to force diplomatic isolation on their state.
	It would not be surprising if hon. Members had a different view of those events, because for the past 40 years the world has been given a skilful version of the story almost entirely from the Greek Cypriot point of view. That is because the Greek Cypriots have had all the Cypriot embassies and high commissions for themselves since 1963. They also occupy Cyprus's chair at the United Nations and in all other international bodies, while the Turkish Cypriots have been excluded from that time until now from all the normal channels of international communication.
	The Turkish Cypriots have been prevented for 40 years from having normal trade and communication with the outside world, but what have they done to deserve that discrimination? Their only crime was to be Turkish in an island that Greek Cypriots wanted to turn into a Greek island, by force of arms if necessary.
	It is important to remember that, although the Greek Cypriots are more numerous than the Turkish Cypriots, their relationship with each other has never been one of majority and minority. The two peoples joined together as co-founders when they established the Republic of Cyprus in 1960 and successive Secretaries-General of the United Nations have acknowledged that fact. The Annan plan makes it clear that their relationship is one of political equality, where neither side may claim authority or jurisdiction over the other.
	The United Nations has never authorised an embargo against the Turkish Cypriots, but the Greek Cypriots were able to place them under restrictions from 1963 to 1974 because they had physical control of the island. By 1974, Greek Cypriot officials had already been accepted for the purposes of day-to-day business by most states and international organisations as if they were lawful representatives of Cyprus, and they were able to persuade the world that Cyprus had been subjected in 1974 to an unprovoked attack by Turkey.
	In fact, when the civil war broke out on 15 July of that year, the Turkish Cypriots again feared for their lives and called on the guarantor powers for help, as the United Nations force could not, or would not, prevent the violence. This time, after waiting 11 years, Turkey responded to their call by landing troops. Britain did nothing to help.
	The Greek Cypriot leader of the anti-Makarios faction, Nicos Sampson, said on 26 February 1981:
	Had Turkey not intervened, I would not only have proclaimed Enosis
	annexation to Greece
	but I would have annihilated the Turks in Cyprus.
	Having dealt with Sampson, it would have been absurd for Turkey to depart and leave the Turkish Cypriots again at the mercy of Makarios, who had been responsible for their persecution for the previous 11 years.
	Turkish soldiers are needed in the north of Cyprus until the Turkish Cypriots can survive without them. We all know from the 1950s that even the British Army could not disarm the local militia in Cyprus. Notwithstanding those risks, the Turkish Cypriots were willing to accept the Annan plan's reduction in Turkish troops to a mere 650 mena force that could not even defend itselfand still the Greek Cypriots object.
	After 1974, they enforced their restrictions against the Turkish Cypriots by persuading other countries, and more recently by persuading the European Court of Justice, that it was illegal to trade with or fly to any part of Cyprus without the permission of the Government of Cypruswhich meant, in practice, the permission of the Greek Cypriots themselves. The purpose of the restrictions was to bring the Turkish Cypriots to their knees and force them to accept a settlement on Greek Cypriot terms. Fortunately they have not succeeded, but it puzzles most Turkish Cypriots to find that the Greek Cypriots also complain about, for example, the ancient heritage in the northwhich I have been fortunate enough to see for myselfbut do their best to prevent international experts and donors from giving the Turkish Cypriots any help.
	The Greek Cypriots were also able, by using international acceptance to their advantage, to secure judgments against Turkey in the European Court of Human Rights in property cases. In fact the second division of the island, which occurred in 1974 and caused property losses on both sides, was caused by the incomparably more serious violation of the human rights of the Turkish Cypriots, none of whom has ever been compensated.
	Some people think that the economic embargo should not be completely lifted because Turkish Cypriots might not then wish to unite with the Greek Cypriots. It is also said that to lift the embargo would be to expose the Greek Cypriot tourist industry to unfair competition from the north. In fact, the reverse is true. The south enjoys an unfair advantage, because the Turkish Cypriots cannot have direct flights to the north or get the investment that they need.
	By 1983, the Turkish Cypriots had concluded that it was impossible to achieve a reconciliation with the Greek Cypriots. One important reason was the attitude of the Greek Orthodox Church, along with the extreme views of its leadership. It is clear from the attitude of the Church to the Annan plan, including threats to Greek Cypriot voters that they would be barred from heaven when they died, that that is as true today as it ever was.
	The Turkish Cypriots therefore had no alternative but to establish their own state, although the international community never understood the compelling reason for that. The Greek Cypriots were able to obtain Security Council resolution 541, which has dissuaded other states from recognising the Turkish Cypriot state. The resolution calls on the world to recognise only one state in Cyprus, but has advisory force only, and relates to events of more than 20 years ago. The situation today is completely different, especially following the referendum earlier this year, and states need no longer feel that the resolution requires or even advises them not to recognise the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.
	It is sometimes claimed that the UN has also called on all states to recognise the Greek Cypriots as the Government of Cyprus, and that the British Government do so. In fact, on 28 April 1980 the then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said in another place
	we have conducted a re-examination of British policy and practice concerning the recognition of Governments. This has included a comparison with the practice of our partners and allies. On the basis of this review we have decided that we shall no longer accord recognition to Governments.[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 April 1980; Vol. 408, c. 1121W.]
	On 30 July that year, the then Minister of State reiterated that
	the British Government recognise States, not Governments.[Official Report, 30 July 1980; Vol. 989, c. 723.]
	That was affirmed again on 12 November 1987.
	Accordingly, if the British Government recognise states, not Governments, neither the Greek Cypriot nor the Turkish Cypriot Administration are recognised by the United Kingdom as the Government of Cyprus. We should therefore stop referring to the Greek Cypriot Administration as the Government of Cyprus, as the Americans have already done.
	On 25 April 1980, the Government declared that they would
	decide the nature of our dealings with regimes which come to power unconstitutionally in the light of our assessment of whether they are able of themselves to exercise effective control of the territory of the State concerned, and seem likely to continue to do so.[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 April 1980; Vol. 408, c. 1122W.]
	Clearly, any such assessment would conclude that the Greek Cypriots are able to exercise effective control of the southern part of Cyprus and the Turkish Cypriots of the northern part, and that they are both likely to continue to do so.
	So far as international peace is concerned, the Turkish Cypriots have no aggressive intent toward the Greek Cypriots, and it is they who have opened the border. There is no Berlin wall in Cyprus. The Greek Cypriots know that they have nothing to gain by attacking the north, and Turkey and Greece now have a mature relationship with each other. It is unrealistic to regard Cyprus as a threat to international peace. Turkish Cypriots are as determined as anyone to fight terrorism, drugs and organised crime, and are already co-operating fully with the international law enforcement agencies. The only reason why extradition is not possible is that other countries have not as yet signed an extradition treaty with them.
	Turning, in conclusion, to the people who had to leave their homes in Cyprus as a result of the violence of the past, of course the Turkish Cypriots are concerned about themas, indeed, are we allbut the dispossessed persons were not only Greek Cypriots. Many Turkish Cypriots have been dispossessed more than once, as they were forced out of their homes in the 1950s, the 1960s, and again in the 1970s. Families have now been resettled for 30 years and more, and the clock cannot be turned back. The Turkish Cypriots' consistent policy, with which I agree, is that everyone on both sides should stay where they are and be compensated. The Annan plan gave 80,000 Greek Cypriots the chance to go back, but they rejected it.
	The property issue must now be dealt with once and for all, and Turkish Cypriots have appealed to the international community for funds with which all those people who lost their property on both sides can be compensated. The British Government should respond generously to that appeal and give further funds with which the Turkish Cypriots can repair the damage done to their economy by 40 years of unjust restrictions.

Denis MacShane: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) for raising this important matter. In the short time left for me to reply, I shall try to respond to some of her points. I hope that she will forgive me if I do not enter into a full historical discourse on the problems of Cyprus. The hon. Lady made a passionate appeal and I hope that she will not disagree with me when I say that she made a strong partisan appeal from the position of the Turkish Cypriots. Had the debate taken place with more expert hon. Members of all parties present and with more time to spare, I could have replied in more detail to some of the historical points that she made.
	Much wrong was done to both communities over the years. The British Government are now seeking not to right all the wrongs of the past, but to move forward. If we allow today to be the prisoner of the past, as Winston Churchill once said, we will never build a future. I do not believe that there are many in the international community who think that the way forward is a unilateraland, if I may say so, provocativerecognition of the Turkish northern Cypriot state. That is certainly not the position of the United States or of Prime Minister Talat. It is not the position of all those who are working constructively to find both an international and, in particular, a European solution to the problems of Cyprus. It is undoubtedly through membership of the European Unionthrough its good offices and trading practices, its support for human rights and the rule of law, and other EU valuesthat a way forward can be found.
	I regret, of course, that we are not discussing today the courageous decision by the Cypriot people to form a new united Cyprus republic. Had both communities voted yes in the referendum, this debate would have taken place under very different terms.
	We must not lose sight of the fundamental goal, which is to work to reunite Cyprus. It is not to encourage a sectarian split, if I might call it that, of the two communities into two states. I believe that the internal dynamic of the EU, combined with proposals to end the isolation of the Turkish Cypriotswhich I hope will address some of the specific and important questions raised by the hon. Member for Congletoncan provide a catalyst to bring both communities together.
	My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I discussed this matter with Mr. Gnter Verheugen, the EU Commissioner for Enlargement, this very afternoon. He fully supports encouraging both communities to come together, and the hon. Member for Congleton quoted him accurately earlier. He is concerned that, whereas the Turkish Cypriots voted clearly in favour of the Annan plan, the Greek Cypriots rejected it.
	The immediate next step is the publication of the UN Secretary-General's report on his Good Offices mission. I certainly do not want to pre-empt that document. We will work in concert with the UN and other partners to ensure that we co-ordinate on next steps. Those comprehensive proposals for reuniting the island were a result of years of work, and compromise. Much of the finalised document is the result of the work of Cypriots themselves.
	I repeat that I firmly believe that the plan provides a fair, just and lasting basis on which to reunite. There is no plan B or C. The referendum provided a chance for the Cypriots to state their views on their future, and we must respect the result. However, it is right to suggest that Greek Cypriots need to reflect on whether they made the right decision.
	I believe that it was a great shame that the Greek Cypriots voted no, and that it was a mistake to reject the Annan plan. That offered the best possible compromise, and a basis on which a united Cyprus republic could have functioned effectively in the EU.
	The Annan plan had clear advantages. Half of all Greek Cypriot refugees would have returned to their former homes, under Greek Cypriot administration. A property restitution scheme would have given dispossessed owners a much improved system for getting back a share of their property, and compensation for the remainder.
	In addition, the plan contained strong and effective protections against migration from Turkey upsetting the ethnic balance of the island. Also, the amount of Greek Cypriot territory would have increased from 64 per cent. to 72 per cent. of a unified state, and the UN had agreed to oversee the transfer of territory to ensure that that happened according to the timetable. At the end of the process, the number of Turkish troops on the island would have been reduced to just 650 soldiers, as the hon. Member for Congleton noted, with great force. Finally, almost all the federal laws of a new united Cyprus republic, including the excellent economic arrangements to ensure financial viability, were drafted by Greek Cypriots.
	In the past 50 years, there have been movements of people all over Europe. We accept that the future of our common EU must be based on interdependence rather than on separatism. People must accept the facts as they are today: they must not hope for a return to the past, or to some imagined past that never properly existed.
	We fully support the EU policy, agreed at the General Affairs and External Relations Council, following the referendums. Cyprus has changed. It would be wrong simply to return to the status quo prior to the referendums. We strongly believe that the Turkish Cypriots, who voted for a peaceful resolution of the Cyprus problem, should not be penalised because the Greek Cypriots rejected the UN settlement plans. Turkish Cypriots demonstrated their desire to be in the EU, as part of a united island.
	That is why it is so important that our country and our Parliament take a lead in strengthening the integration of the European Union, so that Cyprus can find a peaceful role within it. We must reject the views of the separatists and anti-Europeans who would encourage those in Cyprus who want to divide the island permanently.
	The hon. Lady asked about visa restrictions on students from the Turkish north and high-level visitors. It is simply a question of visas being appropriate for members of the European Union. Many Turkish Cypriots will be members of the EU by dint of having Republic of Cyprus passports. Turkish Cypriots from the north with such passports will be eligible for the same student visas as any other member of the European Union. The issue of university fees will be dealt with by the normal procedures that cover all EU member states.
	We will approach the increased trade and travel activity with northern Cyprus on the basis of two principles. We will continue to work for the objective of reuniting the island as a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation. It would be wrong, therefore, to recognise the north of Cyprus as a separate, independent state. As I understand it, that is certainly not the wish of the present elected leadership of the Turkish Cypriots.
	On trade, which is a matter of exclusive community competence, we are waiting for the Commission to bring a proposal to the European Council. In the Government's view, the Turkish Cypriots should be able to trade directly with the EU, importing and exporting through ports in north Cyprus. That will mean putting in place measures to permit duty-free imports of all goods wholly obtained or substantially manufactured in the north, provided that they satisfy the necessary EU checks and requirements. There would, of course, be a requirement that the goods enter via recognised border inspection posts, which could carry out the necessary checks.
	We also await suggestions from the Commission for spending the 259 million structural funds earmarked for helping the north catch up with the EU acquis. We imagine that to that end the Commission will identify a mix of projects on infrastructure, environmental standards, training and legislation harmonisation. The Government, together with our European partners, seek to send a positive message to the Turkish community in northern Cyprus that Europe is their friend. We hope that Turkey as a whole can start accession talks to join the EU in due course. The future of Cyprus lies in the European Union, as the Mediterranean is a strong part of the future policy
	The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Madam Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at three minutes past Eight o'clock.